Lords Sitting of 8 December 1948

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

  DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  2.35 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Dundee Corporation; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

DUNDEE HARBOUR AND TAY FERRIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

WAR PENSIONS AND DISABILITY ALLOWANCES
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived to hold an Inquiry as to whether the existing rates of war pensions and disability allowances are adequate to meet requirements under the conditions at present prevailing. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am about to ask your Lordships, in the Motion which is down in my name, to express the view that in your opinion the time has arrived for an Inquiry into the whole question of war pensions and allowances, and particularly whether the amounts now granted are adequate, in view of the altered times in which we live. In the remarks that I am going to make I shall try not to bore your Lordships with hosts of figures or to involve myself in a mass of detail. Many of your Lordships are interested in this subject, and you know well that there is dissatisfaction concerning the present rates of these allowances. I hope your Lordships will support me, if it comes to a Division, in asking for an Inquiry so that all legitimate grievances may be removed.
This afternoon I propose to confine my remarks largely to an aspect of the matter which has recently been brought before the public. Your Lordships will have noticed correspondence in the Press, and observations made in another place, on the subject of war pensions and allowances. The discussion originated from the fact that the President of the British Legion had given notice of Motion asking for a Select Committee to go into this question of disability allowances. The President of the British Legion was speaking not only for the organisation over which he presides with such distinction but for nine other associations dealing with ex-Service men. I will not go through their names, but if I mention one it will perhaps be the best instance—the Soldiers', Sailors', and Airmen's Families' Association, better known as S.S.A.F.A.
The Government have not only intimated that they will not grant this request for a Select Committee; they have gone further, and have insinuated that these societies are bringing this matter forward for political motives, with the

851
intention of making it a Party question. This, I believe, is the first time that such a charge has been made against the Council of the British Legion; and nothing could be further from the truth. At the present time we see going on all round us inquiries as to wages and terms of employment in industry. Is it then surprising that these associations should follow the fashion, and ask for an Inquiry into what they consider are inadequate allowances? Surely, in asking for a Select Committee they are going the best way to work to keep the matter out of Party politics.
I am sure that many of your Lordships are connected with one or other of these associations, or similar associations which exist to further the cause of ex-Service men and look after their interests, and I think you will agree with me when I repudiate, in the name of the committees who conduct their affairs, any idea that these bodies are motivated by political considerations. Your Lordships will also, I think, agree with me when I say that when these committees meet no political question is ever raised. I am sometimes inclined to think that politicians take themselves too seriously, and that they regard this nation as consisting of two sets of people, each running along strict Party lines and thinking only in political Party terms: whereas, as a matter of fact, there are great sections of the population only too ready to work together in the interests of the people for whom they are concerned. Of these, the British Legion is a shining example. It is true that their views may not always be the views of the Government, but that does not necessarily indicate any political partisanship. I certainly have no political feeling in this matter. On the contrary, I believe the present Government have done very well by ex-Service men in many respects, and that in recent years the interpretations of the Royal Warrants have been more humane.
The Government, too, are evidently well satisfied with their own record, and the list of allowances which have been increased, and of new allowances granted, is quite impressive. Why, then, refuse an Inquiry which might result in a complete justification of the Government's policy, and which would give ex-Service men the satisfaction of knowing that their case had been adjudicated upon by an
852
impartial Tribunal? It would also reassure the nation that the Government are doing what I am sure the nation wishes them to do—that is, to provide generously for those who have suffered in its service. If there are some adjustments to make, or some injustices to right, surely that would be a good way of doing it; and everybody would be glad.
In attempting to argue the case for this Inquiry, I may remind the House that a Select Committee was asked for in 1946. It was then said that the Government would not have an Inquiry at that time because the pensions system had only just got under way, and that it would be necessary to wait and see how it worked. We have waited for two years; and now, I suppose, we shall be told that it is the Government's policy to peg wages, and that pensions will come under that heading. Since that policy was announced, however, 7,000,000 people have had their wages increased; so surely the allowances for injured and damaged soldiers could also be raised.
I am going to confine my remarks to this particular aspect of the matter, but there are many other questions which I think call for an Inquiry. What is primarily troubling the minds of those who are asking for such an Inquiry, in the light of the times in which we are living, and the alteration in the value of money which has taken place during the thirty years since the basic rate was fixed, is the amount of the basic rate of disability pension now paid. There are at present 700,000 war pensioners. They are almost equally divided between the two World Wars. As it is probable that many of your Lordships do not carry in your heads the details which make the basic rate of the disability pension so important, I venture to remind you of them. The percentage of the full basic rate which a disabled man will receive as his pension is based upon the percentage of disability which he is adjudged to have sustained. That is to say, the amount of his disability is fixed upon purely medical grounds, having no relation to anything but his physical state of health.
I would like to refer to the instructions under which these medical boards have to act:

853
"The degree of the disablement due to war service of a member of the military Forces shall be assessed by making a comparison between the condition of the disabled man and the condition of a normal, healthy person of the same age and sex, without taking into account the earning capacity of the member in his disabled condition in his own or any other specific trade or occupation, and without taking into account the effect of any individual factors or extraneous circumstances."
That seems to me a very crude way of doing it. It may be the only way and the best way that can be thought out; but it covers many human tragedies. The categories of disability into which these disabled men are divided are in multiples of ten, the completely disabled man being graded at 100 per cent. and so down to 20 per cent., below which other arrangements are made. The basic pension was fixed as long ago as 1919 at 40s. a week. It was increased by the present Government in 1946 to 45s. a week. This 45s. is not the minimum, as some of your Lordships might suppose; it is the maximum. And it is obtainable only by a man who is completely disabled.
But we do not build up from this base; we cut away from it. This reduction of the pension according to the percentage of disability is carried into what are known as standard allowances—those for the wife and children. For example, a man who is graded as 30 per cent. disabled will receive as pension 30 per cent. of 45s.—that is, 13s. 6d. per week. In addition, if he is married, he will receive 30 per cent. of 10s. which is the standard allowance for a wife, a sum fixed in 1919; and, if he has a child, he will receive, also, 30 per cent. of 7s. 6d. a week, which is the standard allowance for a child. This amounts in all to 18s. 4d. a week. In addition to the standard allowances, which deal with the wife and children, there are what are known as supplementary allowances, the most important of which are for unemployability, constant attendance—this being confined to 100 per cent. disability cases only—and hardship. The hardship allowance is for a pensioner who is permanently incapacitated from resuming his pre-war occupation.
As your Lordships will no doubt hear in the Government's reply a good deal about these supplementary allowances, I would ask you to bear in mind two facts. One is that at March 31 this year only 22,000 men were in receipt of those three
854
types of allowance which I have read out. If you take the whole of the allowances, including those for education and clothing for men who are limbless and that sort of thing, you will find that the figure of 70,000 will cover the number of pensioners who benefit. The following extract from a letter from the Minister of Pensions, will make quite clear how small is the number of men receiving supplementary allowances. It is an extract from a letter which the Minister addressed to a Labour Member of Parliament and to the Labour Party, so that they could fend off any criticism made by their branches of the Legion or others:
"The critics make much of the point…that only a relatively small number of pensioners receive the allowances for un-employability, constant attendance or special hardship, but the fact remains that these provisions exist for the benefit of pensioners who need them, and I assure you they are given the widest possible interpretation."
That may be, but obviously the regulations are such that few men can take advantage of them. Happily, the very bad cases are not so numerous as might be expected, which accounts for this relatively small number. On March 31 of this year, 53,000 men were graded as 80 per cent., 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. disabled.
It is the remaining 600,000, who do not draw supplementary allowances, who are the main cause of the present anxiety. The doubt whether justice is being done to them cannot be dispelled by taking a very badly injured man and adding up all the allowances to which he is entitled (which come to a respectable total), and then saying: "If such a total is obtainable, what is there to complain about? What is the need for an Inquiry?" That some thousands are fairly well provided for is of little comfort to the half-million who are not. In making up our minds on this subject, I may perhaps remind your Lordships what these disability pensions have been defined to cover.
The Select Committee of 1919 was appointed "to inquire and report upon the past method of administering the pensions Acts and Warrants, and to suggest what steps, if any, are necessary for the removal and prevention of grievances." The Report of that Select Committee was unanimous, and it laid down, amongst other things, that

855
"the pension includes not only allowance for economic disability, but also for loss of amenity of life."
The pension is also alluded to as a "personal allowance," and we are now told (it was so described in the other place the other day) that it is
"to give general compensation by way of a make-weight for the daily handicaps which disability places upon them."
That definition was not challenged by the Government.
Can we, my Lords, sitting here in comparative comfort (many of us having been fortunate enough to pass through two or even three wars without suffering disability), feel that we are adequately making up to these men for the disability that they will carry through life, by giving, as in the case I quoted—that of a man with a wife and child—18s. a week, in addition to what his disability allows him to earn? As I said before, the basic rate of 40s. was given in 1919, and was increased by 5s. in 1946—that is, by 12½ per cent. Does that in any way compensate for the decreased purchasing power of money in these last thirty years? What is the value of £1 to-day as compared with what it was then? We have been told that the purchasing power of £1 to-day is about 60 per cent. of what it was thirty years ago. What has been the rise in percentage in industrial wages in that period? Would I be wrong if I said 80 per cent? That the great majority of these wounded men are employed at the present time is good news, but is not this as much due to the shortage of labour as to any particular kindness or solicitude on the part of the Government? Obviously, if it comes to a competition for employment, the first to go, and the last to be taken on, would be the disabled man.
Moreover, the disability pension is not granted for life; at stated intervals the man has to go before a medical board and it is possible that his pension may be reduced, or even withdrawn. Again, if he is unfortunate enough to have to appeal for unemployment benefit, the amount of his pension, plus the standard allowance, is taken into consideration against him. I do not think the lot of the disabled war pensioner is a very happy one. We are told that disability pensions cannot be related to the cost of living. Perhaps not, but they cannot be entirely divorced from
856
it. The man with a pension static, with the price of goods rising in all directions, does not feel compensated by having his 18s. Again, the Minister says
"the Government feel they cannot make any additional payments to those fully employed."
Why not? It is being done in many ways every day of the week; men are given more whenever there is a threat of striking.
I suggest that the public are entitled to know the facts, and I would call the attention of the Government to a recent article in The Times on the necessity of finding out what are the facts. There the leader writer said:
"The first requirement is to get at the facts about the present condition of pensioners of all kinds."
The statement is frequently made that the law should not only be just but should appear just. I am sure that that applies to any regulations concerning pensions—and I am referring here not only to disability pensions but to widows' pensions, particularly, and other types of pension. I would also mention the case of the special campaign pensioners, which has been brought to my notice by a very distinguished member of your Lordships' House who I hope will be here to mention it. He considers that they are getting a very raw deal.
An Inquiry by an impartial body into all these matters would have a great effect in allaying discontent and anxiety throughout the country. Whether or not a Select Committee is the best means of conducting such an Inquiry I do not profess to judge; but it must be an impartial Committee. Personally I would choose a small Committee, and one consisting of people who are known throughout the nation for their standing and integrity. May I ask the Government, when reviewing this matter, to take into account the fact that, whereas the cost of the many schemes of social welfare now maturing will inevitably (and quite rightly) improve as the years go on, the improvement of basic war pensions, for which they are now asked, will be a diminishing liability? Many of these poor fellows have not much life left in them, and in another twenty years the bill will be very much reduced. Men and women die, of course; children grow up and pass out of the scope of children's allowances. The average age

857
of the 1914–18 pensioner is now fifty-eight.
I earnestly beg the Government to consider this Motion, and not to "blot the stamp" on it at once. I ask the Government to hold an impartial Inquiry into the whole question of pensions, and thus put an end to any feeling that exists about it in the country. It would be a finishing touch, I suggest, to a record which is admitted on the whole to have been a good record of humanitarian treatment of those who served us so well. I realise, of course, that the Government have every right to refuse an Inquiry, if they so wish, but in this world it is not always advisable to go to the utmost of one's rights. I conclude, therefore, by reminding the Government of an epitaph that appeared in connection with a man after a car crash. It is as follows:
"Here lie the remains of Robert Gray;
He died upholding his right of way.
He may have been right, right all along,
But he is just as dead as if he'd been wrong."
I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived to hold an Inquiry as to whether the existing rates of war pensions and disability allowances are adequate to meet requirements under the conditions at present prevailing.—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)
2.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I think the whole House is under a debt of gratitude to the noble Earl who has moved the Resolution in such sincere and compelling terms. Perhaps it would be right that an expression of opinion to that effect should come from these Benches, but I think that not the least strong point of the noble Earl's speech was the fact that it came from the Cross-Benches. I feel—and I speak now as a present member of the British Legion—that it would be a great mistake if, by any action in this House or anywhere else, we brought the question of pensions and of ex-Service men into the political arena when there was no need to do so. I want most sincerely to keep that question out, not only to avoid the interests of ex-Service men being made, so to speak, the playthings of politicians, but also because matters of pension—the attributability, the assessment of need, and so
858
forth—are very complicated and technical things, and are far better threshed out outside Parliament by expert and impartial people.
That is the first reason why I believe that the noble Earl who moved the Motion is absolutely right in asking for an Inquiry. I do not think he specified the particular type of Inquiry for which he was pressing; nor, indeed, do we. The actual kind of Inquiry seems to us to matter comparatively little, provided that it is impartial; that the Tribunal, or whatever it may be, is properly constituted, and that the Treasury does not act as a party to the arbitration and also as the arbitrator. Were the Treasury to do so, it would, I think, largely defeat the object which the noble Earl has in mind—namely, that the award, when it is made, shall be one which is so clearly an expert and impartial award that it will settle the question of disability pensions for a long time to come.
Then we have to add to that the question whether a case has been made out for an Inquiry on merits. Here again, it seems to me that such a case has been made out. This is rather a difficult matter to discuss in great detail in your Lordships' House, because, as we all know, pensions cost money, and the voting of money is no longer a matter for us in this House. On the other hand, I feel that we are quite entitled—if I may put it in this way—to express opinions as to how the amount of money which is available for pensions can best be used. I am very doubtful at the moment—quite apart from the question of whether we are spending enough on pensions—whether there are not a number of relatively minor disadvantages and inequalities in the present pensions code which ought to be sorted out by experts. I think that almost certainly there are.
Now let us return to the main point. As I understand the 1919 award, it was made, not with any close relation to the cost of living or rates of wages, but much more as some compensation for the loss of the enjoyment of life and the opportunities of life, and also, perhaps, the expectation of life, by the disabled man. It was, in fact, some compensation for the fact that he was deprived of that physical health and strength which is so often a necessary accompaniment to success in this world. But whether it was

859
that, or whether I am wrong and it was more closely related to the cost of living and rates of wages, the fact remains that the pension was paid, and must be paid, in money; and unless we assume that all the money paid is going to be saved—which does not make sense—we must suppose that it will be spent on something which the disabled man needs or enjoys.
Now we come up against the stark fact that with the money that is now paid—I am talking about the basic disability pension, the 1946 award—the man cannot buy nearly so much as he bought in 1919 with the 40s. There is no getting round the fact that the 45s. now does not represent anything like the purchasing power of 40s. then. It may he said, in contradiction to that, that the disabled man must take his share of the sacrifices and the austerity which, of necessity, we are all expected to bear in this country at the present time. Perhaps that is so, but I mention this matter because I think, without taking the argument any further, that one has here not a solution—because that will not be easy—but a clear case for an expert and impartial Inquiry. It must be an Inquiry well removed from the floor of either House of Parliament, an Inquiry conducted in such a way that when the matter has to be decided by Parliament (as in the long run, of course, it will be) Parliament will have in front of it expert and sympathetic evidence and conclusions.
If that is done, several other advantages will result. One will be that we can expect that the question of pensions, instead of being a running sore, as it bids fair to become now, will be a matter settled for some time to come. That will have an effect which one cannot estimate accurately upon a very large number of disabled men and their dependants, and upon widows, all of whom like, as everyone else does, to know what their position is and to feel that their case has met with a fair settlement. And there will be another good effect as well—that is the effect on the reputation of the Services. I do not want to go into that this afternoon, because I think that before we rise for the Christmas Recess we shall have ample opportunity of discussing that particular matter. Let me now make just this point. Dissatisfied and discontented
860
pensioners do not do any good to recruiting. That is another reason, if another were necessary, why we want to make sure that this matter is properly settled for a long time to come. For those reasons we, on these Benches, hope very much that the fair, temperate and reasonable case which has been put up by the noble Earl on the Cross Bench will be sympathetically considered by His Majesty's Government. We do not wish to be precise as to the kind of Inquiry, but we do feel that a case has been made out for one and we hope that attention will be paid to it.
3.6 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, there can be few more difficult tasks for any Government than that of deciding on the amount of money that should be spent on pensions and, having fixed the amount, deciding then how it shall be divided among the recipients. In the case of war disability pensions, it is of course, a matter of especial difficulty, for no material reward, whatever it may be, can constitute a genuine recompense to a man for the loss of a limb or for having been hurt in some other way, either by reason of wounds or other causes, during the war. All one can say is that it is a matter for general concern that all those affected in this way should not have to live in any way in hardship.
When we read the latest Report of the Ministry of Pensions, we see at once the many improvements for the benefit of pensioners that have been made during the last few years, although the basic rate itself has risen only from 40s. to 45s. If one looks into the matter in detail, one sees that, altogether, over forty improvements have been made in the last few years—for example, improvements relating to children's education and to family allowances. Undoubtedly, very great assistance has been given to those concerned by reason of these improvements, and they well justify the claim in the first page of the Report that the Ministry of Pensions are looking on this matter in a much more human light than before.
But I feel that these things are of only secondary importance compared to the question of the basic rate. The present policy with regard to pensions is very much in line with that followed in regard to Services pay—with regard to which we

861
heard of certain increases only the other day. The Government apparently are unwilling to grant any increase in basic rates although they are prepared to increase allowances to help people who are suffering from particular hardships. In fact, they want to help people who are living in conditions of the gravest hardship but not to help everyone. This method of attacking it, I suggest, does not strike at the root of the problem. I feel that the basic rate of pension should, in some way or other, be correlated to the cost of living. When one looks into it, one sees that in twenty-seven years the basic rate has risen by only 12½ per cent. That does not seem to be correlated in any way to the cost of living.
If we look at the rates since the 1914–18 war, we realise that the rate for these people remained static for a considerable period. We must assume that there was a drop in the cost of living during the early pre-1939 war years, and it must be admitted that in that time no cut was made in the rate. In 1939 the Government of the day fixed the original rate for the recent war at 32s. 6d. This rate did not rise to the old 1914–18 rate until 1943. So, in the last few years, we have had a rise of 12½ per cent., which can be reasonably correlated to the rise in the cost of living during the last few years. There was a rise of 7s. 6d.—that is, from 32s. 6d. to 40s. between 1939 and 1943—but I suggest that that bears no relation to the rise in the cost of living. I believe that in those years the cost of living index rose by as much as 28 points.
One of the arguments is that the partly disabled can work for their living as well, but of course the figure of 45s. does not refer to them, but to the 100 per cent. disabled, of whom there are very few. I would like to take the case of the 20 per cent. disabled, of whom there are a considerable number. They receive 9s. a week. That is the only recompense they receive for what they have been through and for what they have suffered, during one or other of the wars. Their hardship is more than a present one; it continues throughout the whole of their lives and, in many instances, grows worse the longer they live. Let us look for a moment at the practical side of the problem of the partly disabled. They have a great number of extra expenses which their pensions do not meet. They are
862
much more liable to occasional illness than a 100 per cent. healthy man. It is true that free medical treatment is given now, but the loss of work must affect them to a certain extent; and even when a man has a well-disposed employer, that employer is not inclined to give the best jobs to a man continually away from work. Some ailments make these men spend more on transport. Some of them have to take a taxi, where other people can go by bus or Underground. Some of them—for example, those who have had limbs removed—have to spend more on clothes. For the loss of a limb, a man receives £5 per year. Can we seriously consider that this is sufficient to compensate him so far as clothes are concerned? These expenses, though small in themselves and seemingly trivial, come to a considerable amount when added up, and form a considerable liability which the disabled man has to meet. I feel that the basic rate should be a minimum which gives a pensioner complete freedom from fear and from want. I would like to see it much more than that, but I fear that the present rate does not reach even the minimum required.
One other point I would like to mention is that the rate of pension is still based on rank. I do not think this is fair or adequate for the last war. Everyone was called up in the same rank, and remained for six or nine months, or longer, before going to an O.C.T.U. or to a unit where he could reach N.C.O. rank. I wonder how many pensions were granted during the first nine months, when men had had no opportunity of achieving higher rank. That seems to me to provide grounds for considerable hardship. To sum up, I must agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, that some immediate reconsideration of the whole matter is necessary. A Select Committee, or a Joint Select Committee, has been suggested. I think that a Committee of some form should be immediately appointed to deal with this matter in detail. In these days 45s. is a very small sum. The maximum amount anyone can receive (that is to say, for a man, wife and two children, assuming they have all the benefits possible) is only 111s. If you consider all the special expenses that such a man has to incur, I think you will agree that in these cases there is still much hardship.
3.15 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, my experience in your Lordships' House has taught me two things, if nothing else: first, that your Lordships listen with particular interest to noble Lords who have particular experience and particular knowledge and, secondly, that your Lordships review dispassionately the facts in regard to problems. I cannot claim, as can the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery (whose great interest in the men under his command I am sure we all know), or the two noble Lords who followed, an interest such as they have had in the men under their command; nor can I claim membership of the British Legion. The only claim I have to speak is that for a considerable period of time, many years ago, I took part in the agitation for the improvement of pensions for the ex-Service men of the First World War. I took part in the Labour Party agitation and trade union agitation in 1922, and again in 1925. Like many others associated with me, I took part in that agitation because I was appalled at the human misery, at the unduly stringent code of the Ministry of Pensions, the harshness of its administration and its complete failure to meet what I regarded as the needs of the men.
Your Lordships may recall that the agitation of 1925 developed into just such an agitation as is going on now for the appointment of a Select Committee. It developed to the point of a Resolution in another place—a Resolution which was defeated. I am bound to say that those of us in the Labour Party who wanted a Select Committee at that time would have been glad if we had had the support of people like the noble Lords who have spoken up for the ex-Service men in your Lordships' House this afternoon. The plain truth is that our agitation failed, and we have had to wait until the last three years to see swept away many of the things against which we were then agitating. What I have observed with the greatest of pleasure in the administration of the Ministry of Pensions in the past three years is the beginning of the end—even the end of what I call the "Treasury mind," the introduction of a humanising atmosphere inside the Administration. No longer is the guiding question in the Ministry of Pensions: What are the reasons on which we can refuse this man a pension?
864
The question now is: What one reason can we find to try and give him one? No longer is the benefit of the doubt given always to the Treasury; the benefit of the doubt now goes to the applicant.
The noble Earl has reminded us that in January, 1946, in another place, Sir Ian Fraser pressed for the appointment of a Select Committee. I think it would be wrong of me if I did not interject into what I want to say two things: first, my own personal tribute to Sir Ian Fraser for the magnificent work which we all know he has done over a long period of time; and, secondly, my own appreciation of all that the British Legion have done for ex-Service men, from the time when the first sketchy form of organisation began to come into existence in 1919–20. The agitation that commenced in January, 1946, died down, and I think it died down because the Government made an emphatic and useful statement. Without doubt, Sir Ian Fraser at that time had grounds for asking for a Select Committee, because there were so many things that were completely wrong. The Government had done what they could by amending the code. To fourteen Amendments made before the Government's statement of policy, thirty-one more were added, bringing the total to forty-five.
It seems to me that what the Government had to do in 1946 was to make up their mind how they intended to allocate the amount of money they had to spend. They could have taken the easy course, which was to give an ad hoc increase to every recipient of a pension; or they could have done what they did—namely, decide that they would give the money where the need was greatest. If I were asked which method I would choose at any time, I think my choice would always be the latter; and if I were asked which I would choose at a particular time in the finances of this country, certainly I would take the second alternative. Not that the Government felt inhibited from making major changes. One of the first of the points about which so many of us agitated from 1922 to 1925 was covered by one of the most sweeping decisions the Ministry of Pensions have ever made. They put on one side the doctrine of years that a man could not make any claim in respect of a wife or

865
children if he had married after he received his pension.
The 1922 agitation to which I referred had its base in the statement of Mr. McPherson, the Minister of Pensions of the day, that it was not a reasonable liability for the State to be required to give compensation where a man married while not in a condition to undertake the obligations involved in marriage. We thought that was a contradiction of the fundamental right of a citizen; a callous disregard of the right of a man to live his ordinary, free life and to please himself whether he married or not. I congratulate His Majesty's Government on taking that sweeping decision during recent years, as the result of which 200,000 wives and 250,000 children have been added to the roll during the past three years; and men who in 1939 were getting only the flat rate amount have received an improvement from 45s. to 75s., which is a good deal more than 12½ per cent. Indeed, the thousands of pounds spent in that way show the pattern of wise spending upon which the Government were embarking—that of providing the greatest measure of benefit where it was most needed.
Reference has already been made to the unemployability allowance. Let us get all the facts clear about that. When the Coalition Government (and all credit to them for doing it) introduced this allowance at the beginning of the war, it was 10s. a week; 10s. to be added to the basic pension. By 1945 it had gone up to 20s., and now, in 1948, it is 30s. If that 30s. is added to the basic amount, the increase, in that and in pensions affected by nearly every single step taken by the Ministry of Pensions administration, is roughly 90 to 100 per cent. That, in itself, is not a bad approximation to the 80 per cent. figure which the noble Earl, Lord Cork, submitted to your Lordships. Nor is it the case that very few people are receiving that increase, for I believe there are 9,000 who, having had to be content with 40s. in 1938, now, as a result of the unemployability allowance, get 75s. The same story is true in regard to the constant attendance allowance. That 20s. allowance is enjoyed by 5,600. It need not be an outsider to whom that payment is made; it can, and in most cases is, the wife of the disabled man in respect of whom the allowance is granted. The special hardship
866
allowance was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. We had not heard of that in the period from 1922 to 1925, when I was agitating; nobody had thought of it. It was 11s. 3d. in the early years of the war; it is now 20s.; and 5,000 people are receiving that allowance.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Did he say that 5,000 or 50,000 people are getting it?
LORD CROOK: I said 5,000. I am sure my noble friend will realise that the total number of people who are so disabled as to come within the field of consideration is much less than 50,000. I was interested in the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to the clothing allowance and the inadequacy of the £5. I can only say that in the years that have passed none of us ever thought of agitating about it, until somebody conceived what a good idea it would be to make this allowance to people who were wearing out clothes and boots by reason of their particular disability. Some of us were very perturbed—and many of your Lordships were, although I was not then a member of this House—at the failure to cover T.B. cases. What can we do but say "Thank you" that 46,000 cases have in recent years been added to the list of those to whom a pension is paid?
This is all part of a new spirit. As a trade union official in the Civil Service movement who has had to listen for years to Members in another place and here talking about the poor spirit and the unimaginative approach of Government Departments, I welcome the imagination and ability which is being shown in the Ministry of Pensions. I say to your Lordships: leave these people alone when they do get a chance of embarking upon a policy of this kind; let them get on with it without the apparent criticism of appointing Committees to inquire into the work they are doing. I had brought to me in one of those places in the barracks of a Territorial regiment where men gather—the canteen—a copy of the pamphlet Are You Sure? It was brought to me by a pensioner, who said: "It does not seem natural to me that the Ministry of Pensions should send out letters and pamphlets of this kind, asking us if we have enough. It is enough

867
to make the 'old sweats' turn in their graves." And, upon my word, there is something in that remark! I understand from my honourable friend who is responsible for the Ministry of Pensions that 50,000 letters of that kind have already gone out, and that 700,000 more men and women are to receive on their breakfast tables letters and enclosures of that kind, pointing out the improvements and asking whether they are certain they have enough.
When to those breakfast table letters are added the list of forty-five Amendments detailed in the House of Commons Hansard and all the Press publicity which the noble Earl, Lord Cork, will be securing for this matter to-day, I think the suggestion that it is necessary to have a Committee in order that the public may know the facts is partly, if not completely, answered. I think that, by and large, the public do know. I feel certain that all those who are in any way in touch with the men who came back from the last war to receive a pension of 32s. 6d. a week, and who have seen, first of all, that 32s. 6d. turned into 45s., and then wives' and children's allowances added to produce a total of 111s., are conscious that things are not so bad after all. The parents who have seen the maximum allowance go up from 10s. to 20s., and exceptionally to 27s. 6d., know full well that this job has been well done. I think the best description of the job done by Ministry of Pensions can be found in the message of Mr. J. R. Griffiths, the Secretary of the British Legion, who wrote, in March of this year:
"The Government have carried out this job in a realistic and statesmanlike manner by giving immediate help to those who need it most."
For my part, I am very clear that the Government's policy is to take the money to be spent and to spend it in the best possible manner, bearing in mind that it must be in the best possible manner not only for the recipients but for the members of the British public who have to find the money.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan had something to say of those with only a percentage pension. As a Civil Service trade unionist, an official connected with the Civil Service National Whitley Council, representing hundreds of thousands of members—largely recruited from
868
ex-Service men, as a result of Resolutions in both Houses of Parliament—I come into contact probably more than most people with the ordinary rank and file with a 20, 30, 40 or 50 per cent. disability allowance. I do not meet them in the British Legion. I meet them while watching them do their ordinary work and, in most cases, failing to realise that they have a disability. Some of the civil servants who have never lost a day of sickness, apart from the ordinary colds to which we are all susceptible, have lived their lives in the Civil Service and have taken part in sport. To take a typical example, a friend of mine who sat on one of my own committees, despite bad injury from a bayonet in the hand, and drawing 18s. a week pension year after year, never failed to be the office champion at golf and snooker, both of which require the use of the hand. If he is asked whether he has any complaint about his pension, he will express a grave doubt whether the Government were justified in recently increasing his 18s. to 22s. It is not that he is a man who is disinterested in money; he never fails, as a member of the committee, to grumble about the poor pay in the Civil Service.
I reject completely the view that there is any ground for an Inquiry. I think there are only four grounds for the appointment of such an Inquiry. The first would be that there were facts to be discovered; the second, that there were new and grave hardships which needed to be brought out; the third, that the administration was harsh, and the fourth that it was necessary for a new policy to be set down for the Government to apply. Now as to the first, I reject altogether the idea that there are more new facts that need bringing out. As a result of the action of Sir Ian Fraser in 1946, and as a result of the intensive work on this matter in another place in July of this year, there never was a better understanding in this country of where we stand. If the public wanted anything more, the noble Earl has performed that service by raising the matter this afternoon. As to the second ground, I have a memory of a quarter of a century of agitation about the hardships that existed. My only present knowledge of hardships is that for three years they have been steadily disappearing.

869
As to harsh administration, I have seen it for years, and now it has departed. As to Government policy, surely the Government at any time must decide how money is to be spent, and what are the priorities in allocating it. Surely the financial expenditure of the country on pensions, like the financial expenditure of the country on any other item, must be examined and made to fit in with the general economic policy of the country. Never was that more important than to-day, faced as we are with inflationary tendencies and all the monetary difficulties which we know. By giving money, as the Government are doing, to those where the need is greatest, it must be obvious—even to people, like myself, who know nothing about economics—that the inflationary tendency, the risk of the spiral, is not being encouraged in the way it would be if the Government adopted the policy which the British Legion has advanced—that of doubling ad hoc all pensions, and thereby freeing large quantities of money for expenditure on the open market.
There are many other things that I would have liked to say, but I am afraid I have already trespassed unduly on your Lordships' time and patience. I would that there were words of my own with which to conclude satisfactorily what I have said to your Lordships, but I am fortunate that I am able to read the better words, written from a much greater depth of feeling, of Sir Ian Fraser—my admiration for whom I have already indicated. He said:
"No money in the world can make a man happy if he is unfit. Certainly no money in the world can make a man happy if he is in any way cut off from some of the activities of life. Nothing can contribute so much to one's happiness as having to work, and having to work hard."
Surely that is an important observation. For those in real need and distress the present policy of the Ministry of Pensions provides the answer. Where the shoe has pinched, or is pinching, the Ministry are trying to see that the pinch of the shoe grows less and less. In the main, the majority of pensioners of whom we are speaking to-day do go out and work. By going out and working, they too benefit from the 80 per cent. increase in the wage rates, to which my noble friend Lord Cork has already referred.
870
I do not think we want an Inquiry. I am perfectly satisfied to think that the administration to-day is better than any I have ever known. I am happy to resume my seat in the belief that this great country of ours has nothing to be ashamed of in the administration of pensions to those who fought that we might live, when they fought for all of us, for their King and their country, in this last war.
3.37 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we have listened, if I may say so, to a very interesting speech from the noble Lord. I think one of the delightful experiences which one may sometimes go through in life is to witness the poacher turned gamekeeper; and here we have the agitator of 1925 coming and telling the House that "everything in the garden is now lovely." That, so far as I understood him, was the main purport of the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I agree that we have improved (although I am not going to give all the bouquets to one particular Minister of Pensions), and through the years I have seen a great improvement in the administration of the Ministry of Pensions. One of my personal friends who did a lot about it at one time was Sir Walter Womersley, who was a very human Minister in that particular job. I believe that it is, as it should be, the aim of everybody to see that that administration (and I have expressed this view even in the days when there was a Conservative Government) should be loosened and kept a little away from the "Treasury mind." I am glad to say that the efforts of a large number of noble Lords, and of Members of another place, have had some effect upon the Minister in that direction.
One of the points made by the noble Lord was that the Government have used their money to help the really hard cases, in the form of the extra supplementary pension, either under the unemployability allowance (which was started under the war-time Government), or under these other schemes. That, of course, is following exactly the same policy as was followed in regard to public assistance under a scheme brought in by a Conservative Government—which, so far as I remember, was much criticised from the other side. However, I supported it, and I do not think that there can be any criticism

871
of that Government for doing what they did.
The only point that I wish to make—and I am not making it as a Party political point—is this. For many years I have been, and have been proud to be, a member of the British Legion, and I know that the British Legion do not enter into politics. I am certain that in this agitation on behalf of the ex-Service man the Legion cannot be said to be entering into politics. They might well be doing what they are doing, whatever Government were in power. They are merely looking after the interests of those who belong to the organisation, just as any trade union might look after the interests of its members. The British Legion are suggesting now that we should have after the late war, just as we did after the former war, a Committee of Inquiry to see whether all the claims which the Ministry of Pensions make for themselves are justifiable. That is the only suggestion, as I understand it, that is being put forward in the Motion which the noble Earl, Lord Cork, has moved this afternoon.
This basic pension of 45s.—only 5s. more than the figure fixed in 1922—is really ludicrous. Only recently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the value of the pound had depreciated during that period to about 12s. I always think that a good and simple test is to compare what it costs to post an ordinary letter to-day with what it cost in 1913. In 1913 it cost 1d.; just after the First World War it cost 1½d.; and it now costs 2½d. It seems to me that that is a good indication of how far the value of the pound has decreased during those years. But if we compare the wages in certain categories of employment with the pensions granted to these disabled ex-Service men, we find there are very considerable differences. Engineers, whose weekly average was 56s. 1d. per week in 1922 now receive 102s. 7d. per week—a rise of 83 per cent. Shipbuilders, who formerly received 53s. per week, now receive 105s. 6d. The building trades wages have risen from about 71s. per week to 121s. per week—a rise of about 70 per cent. The wages of engine drivers, which used to be 72s. to 90s. per week, are now 126s. 6d. per week—an increase of 56 per cent. Printing trade wages have
872
increased by 86.3 per cent. Agricultural labourers, who used to receive 27s. 10d. per week have, I am glad to say, had the biggest rise of all, to 90s. per week. Even if we take our colleagues in the other place we find a great increase. Some of us who used to serve there received £400 per year; now the members get £1,000 per year—an increase of 150 per cent. Compare that, my Lords, with the increase from 40s. to 45s. per week for a disability pension.
My contention is that there is a prima facie case for an Inquiry at which representatives of the British Legion, and other ex-Service men's societies, could show, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, where the shoe pinches. One of the main objects of an impartial Inquiry would be to bring to the light of day the points at which the shoe does pinch. There was such an Inquiry after the First World War; and there should be one now, so that an impartial body could report to the Government whether there was anything to put right or whether everything was in fact bright and sunny in the pensions world—as the noble Lord who has just sat down seemed to imply. If, on the other hand, the Committee thought that improvements could be made, they could make their suggestions to the Government; and I have not the slightest doubt that in that event the Government would take some action. Such a body, whatever form it took, could go independently, justly and fairly into the whole matter. I hope, therefore, that the Government will have second thoughts, and that they will be able to tell us that they will once again consider holding such an Inquiry as has been suggested. I hope they will feel that that is a good thing to do. If not, I for one shall certainly record my vote in support of the Motion.
3.48 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has introduced the question of the cost of living, because when the 40s. basis was settled the cost of living in this country was much greater than it is to-day. The price of sugar, for instance, was 10d. per pound—I know that because I had to buy it for myself. But I do not want to do more than pass a few remarks, and I do not wish to dwell upon pounds, shillings, and pence, because this is a human problem. The House is indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Cork, for having

873
introduced this question. We are considering men who have suffered, and their dependants who may be suffering, and it would be a cardinal sin if we were self-complacent. The noble Earl, Lord Cork, is doing his best to see to it that we shall not be self-complacent, and I say. more power to him in what he is doing.
Any noble Lord who has sat in another place for any length of time knows the hundreds, yes, the thousands of letters of complaint which we received in the old days after 1926, and how much of our time was spent in trying to remedy what appeared to be a soulless machine so far as pensions were concerned. I remember with joy (if I may use that expression) when the late Freddie Roberts was made Minister of Pensions and said what every noble Lord and almost every Member of Parliament desired—that as a man's health deteriorated over a number of years he should have the right to go to a tribunal, which procedure by Royal Warrant was closed to him seven years after the First World War had finished. And so it went on. If there was thought to be any need for an Inquiry, we have this afternoon had proof that the pensions administration to-day is no longer a rigid instrument or a machine of cast-iron which does not give way. We now have a flexible machine which, day by day, is trying to understand the needs of the pensioner. That is- the reason why I am sorry that the British Legion have made it a No. 1 cardinal issue. However, I am also glad that in the case of B.L.E.S.M.A., of which I had the privilege of being Vice-President, the limbless ones, whilst not specified—why should they be?—at any rate have now realised that they are being looked after as never before by what we call the Ministry of Pensions.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, mentioned Sir Walter Womersley. I may say that he is a Yorkshireman—I have to say that when I make a speech in this House! Sir Walter Womersley brought the human side into the administration of pensions. He was ably supported by Mr. Wilfred Paling who succeeded him. Sir Walter came to the conclusion (with the pension at 40s.) that what was needed was more individual attention, especially for those who had wounds of, say, a 60 per cent., an 80 per cent. or even a 90 per cent. incapacity and that an endeavour should
874
be made to make the Ministry into an instrument of rehabilitation, especially for the limbless men, so that their self-respect might be restored. His object was that such a man should not lose his self-respect, but should realise that he was a member of a community and could contribute to that community. I remember being sent for hurriedly to go to the Chapel-Allerton Military Hospital, because there was a man there minus his hands who had actually taught himself to play billiards. The newspaper had spotlighted him and given him advertisement, and someone with a super-bureaucratic mind had promptly withdrawn the 16s. which his wife was receiving for personal attendance. When I went to Sir Walter Womersley, I well remember how he cursed and swore about it. I only wish that I could curse and swear and tell your Lordships what he said, but I dare not, in this highly respectable House! However, the matter was put right within a few hours.
The whole purpose of the Ministry to-day is to bring a sense of self-respect and rehabilitation to these injured men, especially to the limbless ones. Those men feel it; they know it when they need to have their artificial limbs constantly readjusted. Therefore, I do not wish to talk about £ s. d. Although I could press the case, I do not wish to talk about the cost of living, although in 1919, 1920 and 1921 it was greater than it is to-day. I do not want to do that, but I do want to refer to Ministers of all Parties, including Mr. George Buchanan—who, again, is a man who has done much to humanise this machine and is responsible for many of the forty-five adjustments, fourteen of which, by the way, have been made since April of this year. Inquiries are going on. The British Legion has great qualities. I bow to no one in my admiration of its work, in which I take part in a minor capacity as well as I can. I can assure the British Legion that inquiries are going on. I do not think there is any need or necessity for a judicial Inquiry.
I would ask the British Legion to use its funds more generously. The West Riding of Yorkshire subscribed £54,000 in pennies and threepenny-bits on November 11. I believe the collections amounted to nearly £1,000,000 throughout the whole of the country. With all our grants, even if we made the rate 50s., we always want in addition that which is so much a

875
part of the British way of life—the real spirit of charity. I wish the British Legion, instead of hoarding its money, would spend it more freely, because, assuming it has the confidence of the British public, the cruse of that charity would never run out. Therefore, I disagree with those who say that the British Legion is redundant. It is not redundant. It cannot be made redundant except by its own policy in not making full use of its money. There are many ways in which it can "go the second mile." With the best will in the world, the Ministry may not be in a position, or even have the spirit, to "go the second mile," although it endeavours so to do. The British Legion, with its local knowledge, can come along and dispense to these people not cold charity, but warm-hearted comradeship. The British Legion and the Ministry of Pensions, working together in this spirit of warm co-operation, would be the best answer to the noble Earl this afternoon. I regret to say that I cannot support his Resolution.
3.59 p.m.
LORD CROMWELL: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships from a somewhat different place from that in which I am accustomed to speak in this House, perhaps I owe your Lordships some explanation. A famous Pytchley huntsman, whom I had the honour of following for many years, by name Frank Freeman, once said "If the hounds won't come to you, go and fetch 'em." I am not suggesting any disrespect to those who support the Government, but I am hoping that if I come more than half way to meet them they may perhaps make some response and come a little way to meet me. I am most anxious in this discussion—and I think every noble Lord who has spoken has emphasised this point—to keep this question of the rights of ex-Service men and women out of Party politics. May I give this undertaking?—that whatever influence I may be able to bring on the association with which I am closely connected, it will be my aim and object to bring.
I speak to your Lordships this afternoon with some diffidence—for two reasons: first, because I am one of those for whom the appeal is being made, in that I myself draw a disability pension as a result of serious wounds resulting from the war just completed; and secondly,
876
because as National Treasurer of the British Legion I am most anxious that it should not be thought that, by taking part in this debate, I am in any way trying to bring pressure to bear in any Party bias upon the Government of the day. If I may be allowed to answer the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, who suggested that we should not hoard our funds but should spend them more generously, I would remind him that for the past two years we have spent over £250,000 more than we have received in the same period.
LORD CALVERLEY: In that case I withdraw what I said.
LORD CROMWELL: From what I have said I think your Lordships will see that there is no hoarding. And may I be allowed to add this: the money which we have has been largely saved as a result of the war, when there was no occasion to use it, while a very generous public have continued to subscribe as they have done in the past. I deeply hope that in the next few years the public will remain as generous as they have been in the past, and I can assure the noble Lord and your Lordships' House, that there is ample opportunity for finding places where that money can be well spent.
I will not go over all the ground which has already been covered by other noble Lords, but will restrict myself to asking just one question with which I hope the noble Viscount, when he comes to reply, will deal. The question is: What are the reasons why the Government are reluctant to refer this matter to an impartial Inquiry? I add my support to noble Lords who have said that they are concerned not so much about the composition of the Inquiry as about the fact that it should be impartial, and composed of those who are not members of either House of Parliament. Is it that the Government regard such an Inquiry as a waste of time? Hardly. It surely cannot be because the question is not of sufficient importance. I cannot believe that. I am deeply anxious to know what the answer really is. I have tried hard to think of one, and I hope that when the noble Viscount replies he will be able to say there is no longer any reason for refusing an Inquiry, and that the Government will give support to the holding of an Inquiry at a convenient opportunity. With other noble Lords,

877
I appreciate that the final decision must rest with the Government; they must have the last say. But let them have that last say with the full knowledge of the facts.
4.6 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, it is characteristic of your Lordships' House that a matter of great human feeling should be debated in such terms as those to which we have listened this afternoon, for I know of no section of the community more anxious that the people of this country should have little or no complaint as to their treatment and their entitlement to a square deal in every sense of the word. I welcome the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Cork, has to-day given me an opportunity to remove what I think are some misunderstandings of Government policy and performance in regard to war pensions and disability allowances. So far as the Government are concerned, there can be no Party strife about this subject. Let me make it quite clear that the Government are proud of their record in this matter—as I think they have reason to be, and every noble Lord who has taken part in the debate has paid tribute to the very humane administration now carried on by my honourable friend, the Minister of Pensions.
I am very pleased that this Resolution has been moved by the noble Earl, whose interest we can all say is above Party. Indeed, exception could not be taken in any way to his speech. He indicated that his sole concern is to ensure that justice is done for all who have suffered through service to their country. The noble Earl, with his long acquaintance with serving men, is well qualified to speak on their behalf. I would also like to refer to my close association with this problem. For some ten years I was chairman of a war pensions committee, passing through that very difficult time, the post-war period following the First World War. We then saw the problem at its worst, and I think it can be said, not only of myself but of every Member of Parliament in the years 1922, 1923, 1924 and, indeed, onward, that a large proportion of our time was taken up then in dealing with this sad and sorry problem of the rights of war pensioners.
I am not going to be in any way controversial in dealing with this matter this
878
afternoon. I shall not refer to the conditions which existed for the whole of the period between the two wars. I should like to say, however, that I am delighted that all the noble Lords who have spoken have agreed that there has been a great change not only in relation to the amount of pension—with regard to which I trust I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships later on—but, more so, in relation to the attitude of the Ministry of Pensions in dealing with this problem.
The question to which most time in this debate has been devoted is that of an independent Inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, especially referred to the fact that after the First World War a special Select Committee was set up to inquire into the conditions which then existed. After the First World War there was no previous experience of war pensions on a nationwide citizen army basis to guide the new administration. New principles had to be worked out and new machinery set up, and in the confusion of the rapid demobilisation of 1919 the administration came near to breaking down. No one would dispute that a Select Committee at that time was valuable. Its report resulted in the introduction of the Royal Warrant of 1919, which did not, by any means, solve the whole problem of sympathetic treatment of war pensioners. To-day the position is quite different. The Ministry of Pensions is an efficient and humane administrative machine and the pensions code which it operates is the product of past experience reshaped and adjusted during the wide activity of the last nine years. Its capacity for adjustment to new requirements is well illustrated by the improvements in the Royal Warrant, amounting, as noble Lords have said in the course of the debate, to nearly fifty, all of them improving the condition of the war-disabled man.
His Majesty's Government can to-day see no real difficulty of the sort which usually requires reference to a form of Inquiry. On the main lines of policy there is considerable agreement among all interested parties. Indeed, the present code of war pensions reflects much of what the ex-Service associations have asked for in the past. If it were a question of inadequacy of information, the position would be different. But what evidence

879
is there which cannot be placed before the administration? My honourable friend, the Minister of Pensions, is no inaccessible arbiter. His daily correspondence and contact with other Members of Parliament, who refer questions to him which have been raised by individual pensioners, keep him in touch with the problems of the pensions community. He has a long-established and efficient Central Advisory Committee, on which sit Members of Parliament from the main Parties, representatives of the local war pensions committees, and representatives of the British Legion, British Legion (Scotland) and British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association, as well as officials of the Department.
The committee is an active one, meeting as frequently as is necessary to deal with ex-Service men's problems. Here are gathered together a body of experts on the subject, and I can visualise no questions, no evidence and no representations which could not be discussed in this forum. But this is not the only means of discussion. My honourable friend is always ready to receive representations or deputations, and only last July he had a long discussion with representatives of the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association. Indeed, their representatives at that meeting went out of their way to express gratitude for what he had done and to draw some flattering comparisons with the past, not only regarding the pensions code, but also regarding the very human and sympathetic spirit with which war pension matters are being conducted to-day.
Much has been said in the course of the debate regarding the basic rate of pension. One claim has been made that the basic rate of 45s. for the private soldier should be doubled. Another claim has been made that it should at least be increased. His Majesty's Government have refused these claims as not being in keeping with their policy. That policy, as Lord Crook rightly said, is to seek to give help where help is really needed. The Government's approach to this problem is to regard disablement pensioners as falling broadly into two groups—namely, those who can work and earn and, secondly, those who cannot work and earn, either temporarily or
880
permanently. The vast majority of disablement pensioners fall within the first group. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, refer to the increases in wages which are paid to various classes of industrial workers, and it is gratifying to know that the major portion of ex-Service men who are in receipt of disability pensions are participating in those increases. I do not wish to tie myself down to percentages, but I think the proportion of pensioners who are in employment must be anything up to 80 per cent., 85 per cent. and, sometimes possibly, 90 per cent.
For these pensioners their pensions, with additions for wives and children, are income tax free—I do not make any point of that—and are additions to their normal earnings. For them an increase in the basic rate of pension would mean a few extra shillings a week free of tax, an increase largely unsought by the persons concerned. Of course, even a small increase would be welcome to the recipients, but it would solve no problems because it would largely fall where no specific problem exists. Where there is a problem, the increase would not be large enough. The real problem lies within the second group, that of the pensioners who cannot earn because of their disability. The policy of His Majesty's Government has been to improve the provisions for these pensioners. I am sure that every reasonable person will agree with the justice and wisdom of that selective approach.
Let me now give an indication of the numbers of disablement pensioners for whom the Ministry have provided. Altogether, there are about 750,000 disablement pensioners of both wars. About 50,000 of them are in receipt of a total disablement pension. Some 240,000 are pensioned at 20 per cent. disability, and 150,000 at 30 per cent. disability. Thus there are nearly 400,000 pensioners whose disablement is relatively small, and who normally are able to work and earn. It has also been claimed that there should be an all-round increase of pensions, based on a cost of living sliding scale, independent of the Government's selective approach to the problem; and much has been said about the cost of living this afternoon. In 1919, on the recommendation of a Select Committee, the basic rate was fixed at 40s. weekly. The cost of living index figure then stood at 215.

881
I do not think that at any time in the history of this country—including the war period and the post-war period after the First World War—the cost of living index has gone so high as it was in 1921–22. It was to meet a condition of that kind, that the Select Committee fixed the rate of 40s. weekly. The index figure fell during later years but, to the credit of the then Governments, there was no reduction in the war pension rates, and in 1928 the rates were stabilised.
In 1939 the cost of living figure stood at 155, and on the sliding scale arrangement this would have produced a basic rate of 29s. for 100 per cent. disablement. But it was decided to fix the rate of pension for full disablement at 32s. 6d.—which was, at that time, the rate for 100 per cent. disablement peace-time pensions, and the war pensions for the First World War were not disturbed. It was only in 1943 that the Coalition Government increased the 100 per cent. disablement rate to 40s., so bringing the pensioner of the 1939–45 war up to the same scale as the pensioner of the earlier war. The 40s. remained the basic rate until February, 1946, when it was increased to 45s., at a time when the cost of living index figure stood at 203.
I have here the position as it is to-day. It is the reply to a question put to my honourable friend the Minister of Pensions, in another place in September of this year, when he was asked how the basic rate of disablement pensions for ex-Service men and women to-day compared with the basic rate for 1919 and 1921, taking into account the rise of the cost of living between the two dates. The reply was as follows:
"The basic pension rate was 40s. a week from September 3, 1919, and was the same in 1920 and 1921. By reference to the cost of living index figures in those years and to-day, the present basic rate corresponding to the rates in those years would be 40s. 9d. for 1919, 35s. 2d. for 1920 and 38s. 9d. for 1921."
So that on a comparison with the cost of living index, the value of the present 45s. pension is something like 49s.
No one suggests that for the 100 per cent. disabled man who is unable to work the basic rate is adequate. I want to make that point quite clear, and I trust that I shall be able to prove that in the course of my address. We cannot consider this problem, which affects the lives of so many gallant men and women and
882
their families, as a matter of mere mathematics, and I can assure your Lordships that the Government do not rest their refusal to make an all-round increase on mere mathematical calculations. His Majesty's Government have approached the matter with a determination to do the most that they possibly can for the persons who need the greatest assistance and, in particular, for the group who are not able to work at all. For these, there is provided, as my noble friend Lord Crook has pointed out, the unemployability supplement and increased family allowances. About 10,000 of these supplements are in payment at the present time. Let us see what this means.
The single man in receipt of the 100 per cent. disability allowance of 45s., and unable to follow any employment, receives 30s. per week unemployability supplement. I would like to say here that the receipt of 100 per cent. disability allowance does not necessarily mean inability to do any work; indeed, quite a large proportion of pensioners who are in receipt of 100 per cent. disability pension are in employment, and every encouragement should be given to their employment. In addition, such a man may receive a constant attendance allowance up to 40s. a week, making a total of 115s. a week. Any person who is totally disabled and unable to work is entitled to these amounts. A married man can, in addition, receive 16s. allowance for his wife, with 7s. 6d. a week for the first child and 12s. 6d. a week for each additional child—that is, 7s. 6d. a week, plus 5s. children's allowance.
For the remainder who are able to work (and they represent the vast majority), no considerations have deterred the Government where they have considered there has been a good case for help. My honourable friend the Minister of Pensions has said in another place—and I would like your Lordships to take special notice of this fact—that neither the British Legion nor any other body has brought to his attention a single case of a war pensioner whose sole source of income is his 45s. a week pension. Since that statement was made in July last, almost six months ago, two such cases have come to his notice, and in both my honourable friend was able to award an unemployability supplement. I think, in

883
the interests of the pensioners themselves, that the same challenge should go out from this House this afternoon. If there are any persons in receipt of a full 100 per cent. disability pension, through being unable to work, who are receiving only 45s., then something has "slipped up" somewhere, and it should be brought to the notice of the Minister of Pensions at once.
It is quite clear that we cannot consider this problem merely on the basis of a 45s. pension and ignore the valuable supplementary allowances. I am one of those who believe it is the amount which is contained in the pay packet that counts. On all problems relating to particular classes of pensioners, the Government have an open mind, and they will at all times be willing to listen to representations. But they cannot, at the present time at any rate, undertake an all-round increase to hundreds of thousands of pensioners who are in normal work.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, has referred to one of the greatest reforms brought about. One of the greatest tragedies between the two wars was the fact that, whether a person received a 100 per cent. or a 50 per cent. pension, if he married after his disability he was not entitled to any allowance for his wife or for his children. That went on from 1918 until 1947, when it was put right. There could be no greater concession made to the pensioner than that he should be entitled to his right as a citizen to marry, and to have the home comforts that go with marriage. That the Government have made possible. As my noble friend Lord Crook rightly said, it added to the pension roll 200,000 wives and 250,000 children, who would not previously have been entitled to receive the allowance. And these numbers are increasing.
I will not go into further details, except to mention one case of a 100 per cent. disablement pensioner who in 1938 was receiving £2 a week pension, with 15s. weekly allowance for attendance—a total of £2 15s. 0d. To-day he receives £2 5s. 0d. disablement pension, 16s. allowances for the wife, whom he married after disablement, £1 10s. 0d. unemployability supplement, and £2 allowance for attendance, making a total of £6 11s. 0d. a week. Moreover, this pensioner is to
884
be supplied with a free motor car, with upkeep allowance which will amount to £45 a year. This will enable him, although disabled, to enjoy some of the comfort and pleasures which others can enjoy. That is one example—it would not be difficult to quote many more—where the increase of pension and allowances has made a considerable improvement in the position of a seriously disabled pensioner.
The twenty-third Report of the Ministry of Pensions, which was published in September of this year, gives examples which I am sure your Lordships will find illuminating. It gives some indication of the very humane things which the Department do. From my own experience, I can see how far we have travelled since the old days. I am particularly impressed by the present kindly administration with regard to orphan children. After the First World War, those of us who were members of the War Pensions Committee knew something of that problem. I was impressed with the figures which the Minister gave in another place quite recently. There are 5.000 of these children in the Minister's care—he must have the largest family in the country!—and there is no sparing of pains or expense in the furtherance of the welfare of these children, as can well be judged from the figures of expenditure on their behalf. In all, the sum of nearly £300,000 a year is spent for the benefit of these children on education and welfare services alone. What is important—and what is, I think, a justification of the Government's pride in their administration—is that the Ministry of Pensions expenditure increased from £62,000,000 in 1944–45 to over £94,000,000 in 1947–48. Indeed, for the last three years the pension expenditure of the Ministry of Pensions has increased at the rate of £10,000,000 a year, which is an indication of the attitude of His Majesty's Government to this subject.
The war pensioner to-day has to satisfy far less stringent conditions to obtain his pension than were laid down in 1919. He receives a higher basic rate of pension. He receives supplementary allowances for his wife and family, and they are far more generously granted. The special allowances for unemployability, for loss of earning power and for constant attendance have been very substantially

885
increased in recent years, and the numbers of these allowances in payment are steadily growing. But that is not all. The Minister has established a welfare service to help the individual pensioner with his personal problems. Last night, in another place, he gave an account of this development, and stated that there are now fifty welfare officers at the local offices of the Ministry of Pensions in all parts of the country, and approximately 54,000 pensioners living at home have been interviewed. These welfare officers are not appointed to act as "snoopers." That must be made absolutely clear. Their functions are to see to it that the pensioners receive all the benefits to which they are entitled, and to help them in every possible way.
In addition to discovering many pensioners who are not receiving the full amount of pension to which they are entitled, this welfare service has made contact with many ageing pensioners of the 1914–18 war whose disabilities have worsened since they received their final award of pension many years ago. Between 1945 and the present time, 2,400 of these pensioners have had their disability assessed. This procedure does not make possible any wholesale review, but it does mean that the main cause of whatever hardship exists can be, and is being, removed. I suggest that it is better to leave these matters to the enlightened and humane administration of my honourable friend, who has already done so much along these lines and who is carefully acquiring detailed information about every pensioner, rather than to refer it to a Committee.
In conclusion I would add only that I am sure your Lordships will agree that the record of His Majesty's Government in the last few years in the matter of pensions is such that ex-Service men can have confidence that, notwithstanding the nation's other obligations and economic difficulties, a sympathetic hearing will always be given to the claims of the severely disabled and others who suffer hardship. This Government have never turned a deaf ear to the suggestions of the British Legion, or of other ex-Service organisations. It is no longer a question of having to fight for justice for the disabled. That may have been true once, but it is not now. I would appeal to all who have the interests of the war disabled at heart to advise the
886
associations acting on behalf of the pensioners to join with my honourable friend and his administration through the Advisory Committee, through the War Pensions Committee, end through their associations which are represented upon the Advisory Committee, to carry on the good work which His Majesty's Government have so far carried out.
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I understand from the reply of the noble Viscount that there is no chance of any sort of Inquiry being set up to go into this question. I would point out in a few words that the whole of the arguments from the Labour Benches have been from the general to the particular cases. In my original remarks, I pointed out that it is easy to say that such and such a man has a 100 per cent. disability pension; that he gets the constant attendance allowance, and that he gets the special hospital allowance. These have been dressed up and brought forward and we have been told, or asked to believe, that these are representative cases. I have here what I think are the last figures, published in March of this year. Unemployability supplement is paid to 11,000 men; constant attendance allowance to 5,000 men; special hardship allowance to 4,000 men; clothing allowance—that is for cripples who have special clothing—to 33,000 men, and education allowance to 14,000 men. That makes 72,000 men. Allowing a wide margin, the figure might be taken as, say, 100,000 men. Of course, many of those men draw both allowances or all allowances, but that is only 100,000—giving it a liberal interpretation—out of 700,000.
The demand for an Inquiry is not for those, particular men, and nobody is challenging the kindness of the Ministry. I suppose the truth is that the Government dare not face up to Sir Stafford Cripps and say: "We want £10,000,000 more for the pensioners." The Ministry of Pensions certainly cannot find £10,000,000 or £20,000,000. I do not consider that the answer we have received, kind as it is, is at all sufficient. We have had a wonderful example of a "poacher turned gamekeeper" this afternoon, who admonished what was done in

887
the past and applauded what is being done now. I ask for your Lordships' support to carry this Resolution.
4.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on this subject, which is undoubtedly a very difficult one. I think we all recognise the problems with which any Government must be faced in a situation of this kind. We were all of us impressed by the sympathetic tone of the remarks which the noble Viscount addressed to us. He put, in very moderate terms, the arguments against an increase, but I did not think that he made quite so strong a case against an Inquiry of some kind. After all, the advantage of an Inquiry is not that it ensures an increase: the object of an Inquiry is to find out whether an increase should or should not take place. It has the immense merit of clarifying the facts for all those who are vitally interested, and it has an equal value in removing suspicions which, rightly or wrongly, may exist.
The purpose of such an Inquiry, which would be what is called a fact-finding Inquiry, would be to educate public opinion. It would not tie the Government and it would not tie Parliament, on whom the ultimate responsibility must rest—in a matter of this character the responsibility should rest just as much upon the shoulders of the Opposition as upon the shoulders of the Government. But it does enable everybody to feel that they have had a fair deal, and it enables all the interests concerned to plead their case. The Government may argue that they have made the position so clear that no Inquiry is needed, but that is not the view which is at present held in many quarters. If they want to convince people that they are being fairly treated, the more elucidation of the facts that can be given, the better for all concerned. As to the character of the Inquiry, I do not think it would be wise or right to dogmatise. There has been pressure for a Select Committee or for inquiries of another type. I do not think a pure departmental Inquiry would be adequate for a purpose of this kind. It would have to be an expert Inquiry, an independent Inquiry, composed of men of the highest responsibility whose only purpose
888
would be to get at the real truth of the situation. That is, as I understand it, what the noble Earl, Lord Cork, has pressed for, and I think that is not only legitimate but wise.
I speak in the interests not merely of the Government, but of the Opposition, because this is a problem which affects the Opposition just as much as the Government. It is not the sort of question where, sitting in Opposition, you can press the Government to do something which you yourself believe to be wrong. No Opposition with any sense of responsibility would do that. In the circumstances in which we are placed, and in view of the fact that these are all men who have suffered in the defence of their country and to whom the country owes a very special debt, the Government would be wise to set up some Inquiry, if only to clear the air and prove themselves right. With that view in mind, if the noble Earl feels that he is not satisfied and decides to press the matter to a Division, I shall certainly follow him into the Lobby. But I do not do so because I necessarily disapprove of what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. I think the case for an Inquiry has been made, though not necessarily the case for an increase.
4.46 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate. I greatly regret that the noble Marquess should have taken the line he has taken. From very long experience, he knows as well as I do that when Inquiries of this kind are asked for, they are asked for on the basis of some urgent public matter, of some glaring defect in administration, of some serious injustice and matters of that kind. Nothing of the sort is alleged here. There has been no case made out for a special Inquiry. In fact, everybody has taken the line of showering compliments upon the Ministry of Pensions for the way they are doing their work. In these circumstances, I would suggest that it is altogether out of accordance with all our traditions that a special Inquiry, raking over everything, should be called for, and we cannot possibly accept the imputation which such an Inquiry carries with it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not want to intervene again,

889
and in fact it is only by leave of the House that I can do so. I can assure the Leader of the House that there is no imputation.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There is.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No. As I have said, the reason for the Inquiry—certainly to my mind and, I think, to the minds of most noble Lords who sit on this side of the House—is not that there is any imputation that the Government have not done enough. There is a suggestion that it would be to the advantage of all concerned, and to everybody in this country, that experts, animated by a high spirit of patriotism and responsibility, should produce a Report which would clear the air, and which would prevent certain suspicions which undoubtedly exist at the present time. If the Government wished to avoid any imputation, I should have thought their wisest plan would be to agree to an Inquiry.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Resolution agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If I may be allowed the same privilege as the noble Marquess in speaking again, I would say that we cannot possibly accept that position. We know that fair-minded people in this place would not make an imputation that there is some special need for an Inquiry; but that, as a matter of fact, will be the impression that will be created. The impression will be that there has been some maladministration, some serious defect, or some lack of sympathy in the administration.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is what the effect will be, and we cannot possibly agree to this. I entreat the noble Marquess—whose Party, as well as ours, may be involved in this kind of thing some day—to realise that this would be a very serious mistake.
On Question, Whether the Resolution shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS

Cholmondeley, M.

Hailsham, V.

Gage, L. (V Gage.)

Reading, M.

Lambert, V.

Glentanar, L.

Salisbury, M.

Long, V.

Hampton, L.

Townshend, M.

Mersey, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Monsell, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Beatty, E.

Simon, V.

Llewellin, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Mancroft, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Aberdare, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ailwyn, L. [Teller.]

Moynihan, L.

Fortescue, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Audley, L.

Rochdale, L.

Lucan, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Saltoun, L.

Selkirk, E.

Borwick, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Wavell, E.

Boyle, L. [Teller] (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Teynham, L.

Ypres, E.

Tovey, L.

Carrington, L.

Waleran, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cherwell, L.

Wilson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Crook, L.

Milverton, L.

Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Darwen, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Hall, V.

Henderson, L.

Mountevans, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holden, L.

Pakenham, L.

Stansgate, V.

Inman, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Kershaw, L.

Piercy, L.

Ammon, L.

Latham, L.

Quibell, L.

Amwell, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Calverley, L.

Marley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Merthyr, L.

Walkden, L.

Williams, L.

PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS BILL [H.L.]
4.59 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 4:
Power of local authority to require action
4.—(1) If it appears to the local authority, whether in consequence of a notice given in respect of the land under the last foregoing section or otherwise, that rats or mice are living on or resorting to any land in substantial numbers, or are likely to resort thereto in substantial numbers unless steps are taken to prevent them, they may serve on the owner or occupier of the land a notice requiring him to take within a reasonable period such steps as may be specified in the notice for the destruction of rats or mice or otherwise for keeping the land so far as practicable free from rats or mice; and where the owner of any land is not also the occupier thereof, separate notices may be served under this section on the owner and on the occupier.
(2) Any such notice may in particular require—

(a) the application to the land of any form of treatment specified in the notice;

(b) the carrying out on the land of any structural repairs or other works so specified,

and shall prescribe the times at which or the period within which the steps required by the notice are to be taken.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (1), after "numbers" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:
"having regard to proximity of infestation or the character of the land or its use likely to encourage infestation,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises out of a discussion which your Lordships had on the Committee stage, when I drew attention to the very wide provisions of Clause 4. As the Bill is drawn now, I think it obligates the local authority concerned to deal with all land to which rats and mice might resort. There is much land which is potentially land where these animals might go. It is a likely "hunting ground," unless steps are taken to prevent the animals so resorting to that territory.
As I read the Bill, all such land should be treated, even if there is no immediate likelihood of the animals resorting thereto, unless the local authorities can foretell the intention of the animals not to go there—which seems to me to be rather an unfair burden to place upon the local authorities! We have meteorological forecasters at the Air Ministry. We
892
are now to have rat forecasters at the Ministry of Agriculture, in which case I trust that they will forecast more accurately than some of the Air Ministry forecasters have done. In moving this Amendment, I have used the word "infestation," about which we have already had some discussion. There is in Clause 27 a definition of "infestation." So far as I can see, that definition, which refers particularly to Part II of the Bill, would for my purposes apply equally to Part I. Therefore, I have no hesitation in using that particular definition. I shall not go to the length of pressing this Amendment unduly, but I put it down in all seriousness to see whether we can restrict the possibility of local authorities having thrust upon them a heavy burden with very little result. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, after ("numbers") insert the said new words.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment and for the sporting spirit which must have actuated him. Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading the noble Lord attempted to knock my middle stump out of the ground by confronting me with the awkward question arising on Part I: Would I define infestation? I am sure the noble Lord will now allow me the opportunity of asking him the same question, because the noble Lord's definition of "infestation" which we then gladly accepted, could not relate to Part I in the sense that he now apparently intends. Infestation as now defined, deals solely with the infestation of food, or infestation that is "likely to cause damage to food." If this definition is to be applied to Part I, then, unless it can be proved that the presence of rats or mice is detrimental, or is likely to be detrimental, to food there is no obligation upon anybody to notify the presence of rats or mice. I am sure that on consideration the noble Lord will agree with me that there are abundant cases where rats and mice will infest various parts of land without any imminent danger to food.
We sympathise with what the noble Lord wishes to do, but I suggest to him that it is adequately covered at the present time. It is quite obvious that if there

893
is an uninfected area within an infested area, and you try to eliminate the infestation, you will very probably drive it into the clean area. That is why the expert rat and mice exterminators should have the necessary safeguards. I can assure the noble Lord that he can safely leave the matter. We cannot in any case accept his Amendment, because I think the noble Lord will agree that he has failed, as I failed, to put forward a good interpretation of the word "infestation" to cover all the circumstances that might arise on Part I of this Bill. For that reason, I regret that I cannot accept his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think that the House would probably agree that anybody responsible for the phrase "proximity of infestation" ought to be made to take it as a subsidiary title.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am not going to attempt to defend the actual terms of my noble friend's Amendment, but I would like to ask the noble Lord opposite one question. What is the object of this Part of this Bill? I ask that, having regard to one of the arguments which the noble Lord has used. Surely it is to exterminate rats and mice, because they eat food. Really, they are rather nice little things! If they did not eat a lot of food, nobody would bother at all. Some people like to keep mice, and some children like to keep rats. It is only because they do such an immense amount of damage to crops and food that these powers are taken to exterminate them. Therefore, I do not see why on those grounds the noble Lord opposite objected to my noble friend's Amendment, although in regard to the actual wording of it I can see good reasons for its needing improvement.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Surely, the noble Lord has entirely left out of his consideration the great menace that rats are to public health. Surely the spread of disease is an important consideration—I could not say whether it is equal to that of the preservation of food. If, however, this Amendment is accepted, the spread of disease could not be a reason for calling for notification. It could be only by infestation which damaged food. I think the noble Lord will agree with me on that point.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Although I am not entitled to speak again on this Amendment, may I ask one question? Is it not a fact that the title of the Bill says:
"to make permanent provision for preventing loss of food by infestation"?
That seems to be the primary purpose of the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I grant that, but there may be subsidiary purposes as well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to omit "within a reasonable period such steps as may be specified in the notice" and insert:
"within such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice, such reasonable steps as may be so specified."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage I accepted an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, dealing with this point. When we came to look at it, however we thought that in the interests of tidier drafting, these present words would be more appropriate. They have exactly the same meaning as the noble Lord intended. I hope, therefore, that in the interests of tidier drafting the noble Lord will agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("take") to ("for") in line 3 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. If your Lordships remember rightly, I put down an Amendment which left out the words "as may be specified." We all agreed that between Committee and Report stage we would look into this matter together, to see whether we could draft the Amendment so as to leave in the words "as may be specified" and yet accept the idea behind my Amendment. In this and in the following Amendment but one, the noble Lord has completely met my point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("and") to end of line 14 and insert ("may prescribe the times at which any treatment required by the notice is to be carried out.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Any notice given under the foregoing subsection requiring the application to land of any form of treatment shall be given to the occupier, except that in cases where—

(a) the land is unoccupied; or

(b) where the land or premises are occupied by more than one tenant and where services relating thereto and management thereof are performed by or on behalf of the owner;

the notice shall be served on the owner."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this point on the Committee stage. What I want to ensure is that notice is served upon the right person—namely, on the occupier, if the occupier is the person in a position to carry out the treatment, or on the owner, should there be no occupier, or where the owner provides common services for tenants or has control of, let us say, a block of flats and so is the person who can carry out the treatment. On the other hand, I quite realise that my Amendment may not cover all cases in which notice should be served upon the owner as against the occupier. It has been pointed out to me that that can be done under the provisions of the Local Government Act, and that in the Public Health Act there is the provision which is incorporated in subsection (5), where an owner or an occupier equally can say that the notice has been served upon the wrong person and the local authority have thereupon to change it.
A very similar point was contained in an Amendment that I moved on the Committee stage. On that occasion the noble Lord was good enough to say that in the circular which will go out to local authorities if and when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, attention will be drawn to
896
the necessity of serving this notice initially on the right people—namely, the people who are in a position to take the appropriate action which will be specified in the notice. If the noble Lord can give me a similar assurance in regard to this Amendment, that this point will also be dealt with in the circular, I shall be inclined to withdraw this Amendment, because my Amendment may not specify every instance where notice ought to be served on the owner and the matter is perhaps better left to the provisions which are already on the Statute Book in the Public Health Act of 1936. If I can have that assurance, I shall have achieved the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I promised on the Committee stage that I would try hard to see if we could meet him and, as a matter of fact, we have tried together. The matter is a very difficult one, but perhaps it may afford some encouragement and help if I direct the noble Lord's attention to Clause 9, subsection (1), where he will see these words:
"A local authority may, for the purpose of enabling them to perform any of their functions under this Part of this Act, require the occupier of any land, and any person who directly or indirectly receives rent in respect of any land, to state in writing the nature or his own interest therein"—
and so on. That may help to meet the noble Lord's point that it is essential that these notices, where there are cases of doubt—and there may be many—should be served upon the right person, and that there should be no considerable, or at least preventable, inconvenience. The noble Lord will know that it is impossible to put in the Act that "the local authority shall serve the notice upon the right person." That is, of course, implicit. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and will willingly accept the suggestion that he made in connection with the other case, that we should see that instructions are set out explicitly in an administrative circular to the local authorities. I am also grateful to the noble Lord that, having received this assurance, he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Additional powers of local authorities in relation to groups of premises]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Powers of entry]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, as your Lordships will remember, on the insertion of a new clause during the Committee stage we left out separate references to aircraft. These words were inadvertently left in this case, and we are now seeking to take them out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, leave out ("or aircraft").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

WAGES COUNCILS BILL
5.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the Bill for which I am asking a Second Reading this afternoon is designed to effect improvements of a procedural character, although of some importance, in the machinery for establishing and regulating statutory minimum wages. It is a very short Bill and I think is quite uncontroversial. It comes to your Lordships' House in exactly the same state as it was introduced in another place. The Bill has two main aspects, the first relating to road haulage wages legislation, under the Act of 1938, and the second relating to the Wages Councils Act of 1945. The amendments which it effects are the result of experience in working these two Acts. First with regard to road haulage wages legislation, the Bill, by Clause 1, would substitute a Wages Council for the Road Haulage Central Wages Board established by the 1938 Act. That Act was found to be rather
898
complicated. In particular it established no fewer than eleven area boards, and the substitution of one Wages Council would obviously be a great simplification of that position, and it would also lead to a substantial saving in time, because it would cut out some of the intermediate machinery. The Road Haulage Central Wages Board, and also the National Joint Advisory Council, have expressed complete sympathy with this proposal, which I am sure your Lordships will think is very reasonable and necessary.
With regard to the Wages Councils Act of 1945, there are quite a number of procedural amendments introduced to that Act. Your Lordships will remember that this is the Act which superseded the earlier legislation relating to trade boards. Since the first Trade Boards Act was passed, the situation, in which there were a number of sweated industries, has materially altered, and the industries in which these bodies are established are now reasonably organised. But it has been found that one or two amendments are necessary. I do not think I need draw your Lordships' attention to them in detail. They are there, and if there arise any points for discussion, we can discuss them on the Committee stage. I am sure you will agree that this is a useful piece of additional legislation, designed to assist the co-operative work between one side of industry and another, and I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chorley.)
5.19 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in one or two sentences I would like to say that we on this side of the House welcome this Bill, and we shall give it every facility to pass through its various stages. It is an expression of the spirit of co-operation in industry that we all wish to see extended, in that it comes as an agreed measure by both sides of the industry and independent members. It will have one tremendously beneficial effect: it will speed up wage negotiations, delays in which, I think, were largely the cause of the road haulage strike from which we recently suffered. I feel that it can do nothing but good. In co-operation

899
we can all go forward; divided we cannot. This is a measure which will help us to go forward together.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LACE INDUSTRY (LEVY) ORDER, 1948
Draft Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947; Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
JEWELLERY AND SILVERWARE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ORDER, 1948
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; That in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy or principle; That the Order is founded on precedent; That in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (COMPENSATION) REGULATIONS, 1948
Report from the Special Orders Committee. That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; That in their opinion the Order does not raise important questions of policy or principle; That the Order is not founded on precedent; That in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
POLICE PENSIONS (No. 2) REGULATIONS, 1948 POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1948
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Orders as required by the Standing Orders of the House; That in their opinion the Orders do not raise important questions of policy or principle; That the Orders are founded on precedent; That in the opinion of the Committee the Orders can be passed by the House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.