Lords Sitting of 18 January 1949

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

  MESSAGES FROM THE KING
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have the honour to present two Messages from His Majesty the King signed with his own hand. They are as follows:
  "I have received your Address praying that Regulation Seventy-six of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, be continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine. I have given directions accordingly."
  "I have received your Address praying that section eight of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, as amended by subsection (1) of section five of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, be continued in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine. I have given directions accordingly."

GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty has appointed
2
Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Glynne Horrocks, K.B.E., C.B., D.S.O., M.C., to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in succession to Vice-Admiral Sir Geoffrey Blake, K.C.B., D.S.O., and that he is at the door ready to receive your Lordships' commands.
Whereupon the House directed he should be called in. Accordingly he was called in and officiated in his place.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure you will not wish this occasion to pass without some reference being made to Sir Geoffrey Blake, who was appointed Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in 1945 and who unfortunately has had to resign owing to continuing deafness from gunblast, incurred during his service in the Navy, which has made it increasingly difficult for him to perform the duties of his office. Your Lordships will agree, I am sure, that Sir Geoffrey has worthily maintained the dignity of the ceremonial duties of his ancient office in this House, which date from the reign of King Henry During the comparatively short period of his tenure of office it has fallen to Sir Geoffrey to take part in more than one historic occasion, and I am sure that every member of the House who has participated in those ceremonial occasions under the guidance of Sir Geoffrey will have been impressed by the dignity and seriousness which he has imparted to the proceedings. I know—for he has told me himself—that he quits his office with the happiest of memories and with extreme reluctance and regret. I am sure I am expressing the desire of your Lordships when, in the name of the

3
House generally, I express our sincere thanks to him for his services and for the unfailing courtesy which he has shown in their discharge, and extend to him our good wishes that he may enjoy many years of happiness in his all too early retirement.
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, all of us who sit on this side of the House would wish to be most fully and sincerely associated with the happy but deserved tribute which the Leader of the House has paid to Admiral Sir Geoffrey Blake. Twice in Sir Geoffrey's career has the accident he sustained in the First World War handicapped and frustrated his service. Sailors of the highest competence have told me that, but for that accident, nothing could have stopped Sir Geoffrey Blake from attaining the highest command in his Service. We had all hoped that when he was appointed to this honourable post he would for long have found a safe anchorage here. He has in a very short time become part of this place, I think because he loves it. He has been the friend of us all, and the soul of courtesy and kindness to our ladies. Once again the accident sustained during his war service has cut short his career, and he is forced to lay down his post. We shall all miss him, but I hope that he will often come back to his old haunts. Your Lordships generally sit when the sun is over the yardarm, and if, as I hope, Sir Geoffrey often returns, I am sure that all of us will vie with one another to give him hospitality.
2.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, noble Lords who sit on these Benches wish to associate themselves very cordially with the tributes which have been paid to Admiral Sir Geoffrey Blake. I am particularly happy personally to say a word on this occasion, because I have always had a deep respect for the office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. It happens to have been held during the last century by a great uncle of mine who was also an Admiral, though he had not, of course, the same war record as Sir Geoffrey Blake. I did not know then quite what he did, but I believed he performed some mysterious and rather awesome duties in Westminster. Now that I have more experience I know what
4
the post of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod requires: it requires dignity, tact, courtesy and kindness. All these qualities are certainly possessed by Sir Geoffrey Blake; and we wish him Godspeed and the enjoyment of many years of happiness.

EMBASSY OFFICIALS AT BUCHAREST
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had given Notice of the following Question:
[To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Roumanian Government have requested the withdrawal of certain Embassy officials at Bucharest, what are the grounds for the request, and in the event of His Majesty's Government not concurring in it, whether they will take similar action to that reported to have been decided upon by the Government of the United States in a similar case.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave of the House to postpone the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

CONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
2.42 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
[To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the decision of the House of Lords upon the regulations governing the use of controlled crossings, and the views expressed by their Lordships; and, in view of the somewhat dangerous situation which is likely to arise as a result of this judgment, whether His Majesty's Government contemplate either fresh legislation, or revision of the regulations in the interests of public safety.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, His Majesty's Government have noted the recent judgment and the views to which the noble Earl refers in his Question. The Minister of Transport had already been impressed with the desirability of improving the Regulations, if at all practicable, and had referred the matter to his Committee on

5
Road Safety for advice. He hopes to receive a report from them at an early date.

BRITISH CLAIMS AGAINST GERMAN ASSETS
2.43 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government why under Article 6A of the Paris Reparations Agreement and the relative Accounting Rules covering the disposal of German assets under the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government, they propose not to avail themselves of their right to treat such assets, in so far as legitimate contract claims of British nationals exist against them, as British assets not accountable to the Reparations Pool.]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords. His Majesty's Government are at the moment considering representations which have been made to them that unsecured contract claims by United Kingdom creditors against German debtors should be satisfied out of monies formerly belonging to the debtors and now in the possession of the Custodian of Enemy Property. Meanwhile, however, they wish to make the following statement on procedure.
The rules of the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency require that claims of this kind must be filed with Governments before January 24, 1949. The time left for the presentation of claims is therefore short. In the circumstances His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept pro forma applications from all persons in the United Kingdom to whom any person in Germany owes money, and who believe that at the outbreak of war the German debtor held assets in this country, to have those assets used towards payment of their debts. Any United Kingdom creditor who has not already registered the debt owing to him with either the Board of Trade, the Trading with the Enemy Department, or any of the United Kingdom Custodians of Enemy Property, should notify the Administration of Enemy Property Department, 32, Warwick Street, Regent
6
Street, London, W.1, before January 24. Those who have already registered the debts owing to them are invited to write to the Administration of Enemy Property Department at an early date (though this need not be during this week) giving reference to the previous correspondence, and naming—where this has not already been done—any assets which, to the best of their belief, were held by their debtors in this country at the outbreak of war.
Because of the short notice which has been given of His Majesty's Government's intention of considering this matter further, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to consider what treatment should be given, should the circumstances require it, to cases which have not been notified by January 24. For the moment, all that is required front creditors is a simple notification of the debt and of any assets in the United Kingdom which they have reason to believe were held by their debtors at the outbreak of war. It should be emphasised that His Majesty's Government's present action does no more than safeguard the position of creditors, should the eventual decision be that the United Kingdom should avail itself of its rights under Article 6A of the Final Act of Paris on Reparation.
2.46 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, arising out of the last paragraph of the noble Lord's Statement—a Statement of which he had, with his customary courtesy, given me a copy—which reads as follows:
"It should be emphasised that His Majesty's Government's present action does no more than safeguard the position of creditors, should the eventual decision be that the United Kingdom should avail itself of its rights under Article 6A of the Final Act of Paris on Reparation."
may I ask whether His Majesty's Government appreciate that, the Government of the United States, and doubtless the Governments of others of the United Nations, are in fact availing themselves of this right, by discharging claims of their nationals against the German former owners of the assets in question? Is the noble Lord aware that if His Majesty's Government fail to do likewise, this will have the effect of reducing, to the benefit of our former Allies, the British share of reparations ultimately extracted from Germans? May I also ask that the widest publicity should be given to the noble Lord's reply? I am sure he

7
will appreciate that, as it is now January 18 and the date he gives is January 24, not very much time is given for people to take the necessary steps.
LORD PAKENHAM: I have no doubt that the considerations mentioned by the noble Lord at the beginning of his supplementary question have been fully borne in mind but I will make sure that they are once more attended to. I am hopeful that the consequences to which he referred later in the question will not occur, but I will most assuredly give the fullest undertaking that it is the intention of the Government to take every possible step to ensure that the widest publicity will be given to this announcement.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, if there is any doubt as to the propriety and wisdom of availing ourselves of the Article to which reference has been made, may I ask whether it is not a fact that after the First World War the Custodian of Enemy Debts held all the property of ex-enemies in this country for the very purpose of meeting, in the first place, claims of creditors here; that that was recognised as right and reasonable, and that it worked admirably? Why should not that precedent be followed, I would almost say as a matter of course, at the present time?
LORD PAKENHAM: I have no doubt that any precedent that worked well after the First World War is being and has been carefully studied. I cannot confirm that what the noble Viscount has just informed us is the fact, but I will gladly take it from him that it is so. I was not in full circulation myself just after the First World War. I hope that both the noble Lord and the noble Viscount will allow me to inform them privately of the full position in all its details.

COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it is pleasant to observe that something like the Christmas spirit seems to have lingered on into the present Sitting of the House. I do not know how long it
8
will last. I think I may assume that it will not go on for ever, but I shall try not to be the first speaker to dispel it. This small Bill—the Colonial Naval Defence Bill—aims at modernising the Colonial Naval Defence Act of 1931, which enables Colonial Governments to provide for the maintenance and use of warships, and for the service and discipline outside a Colony of a naval force raised within it. That was the limited scope of the Act of 1931. That Bill was also introduced in your Lordships' House, and in recommending it the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, who at the time was Secretary of State for the Colonies, confined his remarks to one column of the OFFICIAL REPORT, to the complete satisfaction of noble Lords opposite. I cannot undertake to be quite so brief, and I do not think your Lordships would wish me to deal so cursorily with a measure which will add something substantial to the fabric of Commonwealth naval defence. But any Bill designed to strengthen the defence of the Commonwealth, even in a small way, has always found support in all quarters of this House. Therefore, in submitting this measure for your Lordships' approval, I share the optimism and confidence felt by Lord Passfield at that time, when he allowed his Bill to do most of the speaking for itself.
The present Bill is required to adapt the 1931 Act to present day conditions, and to make it a more effective instrument in providing for the naval defence of our overseas dependencies. The 1931 Act applied only to the Colonies. It is now desirable that as many as possible of our dependent territories should play their part in the organisation of naval defence. We therefore propose in Clause 1 (3) of this Bill to apply the provisions of the 1931 Act to other territories in which His Majesty has jurisdiction—such, for example, as British Protectorates and Trust Territories. This will be particularly advantageous in East Africa, where Uganda is a Protectorate and Tanganyika, of course, is a Trust Territory. We also wish to ensure that all these territories have as much freedom as possible to combine with each other, and with their neighbours, in raising as well as maintaining naval forces. A Colony always had the power to raise a force within its own boundaries. The 1931 Act extended this power by enabling the Colony to

9
join with any other Colony for maintaining and using warships, and by allowing it to apply disciplinary provisions to a naval force raised in its own territory when operating outside that territory. But this Act did not enable the Colony to assist in raising a force in another territory, or in applying disciplinary provisions to a force so raised. This new and important power is conferred by Clause 1, subsection (2), of the Bill. For example, an inland Colony may wish to legislate for the establishment of a naval force in conjunction with a seaboard Colony, and this force would be established and maintained within the territorial waters of the second Colony.
During and since the last war, a pattern of regional co-operation has emerged throughout our overseas dependencies, and regional bodies have been set up to advise upon or to execute policy in matters of common concern to a number of neighbouring territories. For example, in East Africa the East African Central Assembly has been established as a common legislature to deal, amongst other matters, with the defence of this group of territories. Its members—namely, Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika—have agreed with Zanzibar, and made the necessary preliminary arrangements, to combine in the raising and maintenance of a regular full-time naval force, based at Mombasa. The main functions of the force will be coastal patrol, minesweeping and harbour control duties. The passage of this Bill will, through the application of Clause 1 (3) (b), make it possible for the East African Central Assembly to legislate for this purpose. Quite simply and briefly, these are the main objects of this Bill, which seeks to enable our dependencies overseas to make a larger contribution than hitherto to their naval defence. The other provisions of the Bill deal with lesser matters, and are mainly concerned with removing administrative difficulties experienced under the 1931 Act.
I will deal briefly with these lesser provisions. Under that Act, a Colonial Legislature must first provide for raising a naval force, and only after this has been done can it go on to obtain approval by Order in Council for further legislation to make its ships and their crews effective naval units. For example, fresh legislation would be required to put them under the enactments and regulations for the
10
enforcement of discipline in the Royal Navy, to make them liable for service and training outside the limits of the Colony, and to provide that they shall form part of the Royal Naval Reserve or the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. As a result, there was long delay in the completion of the legislation required to make a Colonial naval force effective, and much waste of official time and ingenuity before the necessary legislation had been enacted. We therefore propose to abolish the cumbersome procedure of the 1931 Act by enabling the powers in Clause 2 (1) of that Act to be exercised in advance of, but of course subject to, approval by Order in Council. This is the object of subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 1 of the present Bill.
Two other minor matters have also been dealt with. The Royal Fleet Reserve is part of the Royal Naval Reserve, although in practice it is treated by my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty as a separate force. The 1931 Act did not make it plain in terms that powers conferred on Colonies to provide that members of their naval forces should form part of the Royal Naval Reserve, or the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, should include powers to provide for their membership of any particular division of these forces, such as the Royal Fleet Reserve. Clause 1 (4) of the Bill is intended to remove any doubt on this point. It might also be desirable to maintain naval forces in inland waters—for example, on Lake Victoria or Lake Nyasa—and Clause 1 (7) has been inserted in the Bill to make it clear that the territorial waters of a Colony include any inland waters, as well as the waters adjoining the coast. So much for the contents of the Bill. I must apologise for dealing with some rather tiresome and minor administrative details, which are important, although they do not raise the issues of policy to which I referred at the outset of my remarks.
The next subject with which I should like to deal briefly does not, I admit, arise directly from the contents of the Bill, but, at the same time, in thinking over the presentation of this Bill, it occurred to me that it might interest your Lordships to hear something in broad outline about our plans for improving the naval defence of our overseas territories. The implementation of these plans

11
will be greatly facilitated by the passage of this Bill. Hitherto, only part-time naval forces similar to our own Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve have been established in certain Colonies. It is now our intention that at least some of the Colonial naval forces should be Regular and whole - time services, although of course they may also include a part-time element. These forces will be maintained by the Colonies at their own expense, but they will receive assistance from the Royal Navy in the provision of equipment, and in the selection of retired naval officers and ratings who will pass on their skill and experience to the Colonial Naval Forces.
In addition to the East African force, which we have in mind as a force that will be raised by the East African Colonies, plans are now well advanced for the raising by the Colony of Singapore of a Malayan Naval Force with a Regular full-time element and a Volunteer Reserve, which it is desired should carry out anti-piracy patrols in Malayan waters, in addition to minesweeping and ordinary harbour control duties. As a slightly longer-term project, the four West African Governments have been asked to consider a proposal that they should combine in the raising and maintenance of a small regular naval force on the lines of that already in prospect in East Africa. Other developments that we anticipate are the raising of a small naval force in Fiji, and the establishment of the naval component of the Hong Kong Defence Force. We also hope that similar action may be possible, of course in the rather more remote future, in the West Indies.
My Lords, this Bill is not a major Bill but it is of sonic importance, because it will enable our overseas dependencies to provide more effectively than hitherto for their naval defence. During the late war, a valuable contribution was made by the small local naval forces maintained in our Colonial territories. Although their duties were limited mainly to harbour defence, and local minesweeping and patrols in adjacent waters, they freed the forces of the Royal Navy from many wearisome tasks which would otherwise have inevitably fallen upon them; and they also played a substantial part in securing the safety of those world-wide bases which are vital to the exercise of our sea power. The creation under the
12
provisions of this Bill of Colonial naval forces in no way affects the resolve of His Majesty's Government that the ships of the Royal Navy will at all times be suitably disposed to safeguard the Colonies. We hope that the Colonies will continue to have good reason for the pride and affection they have always felt for the Royal Navy. Only recently we had an impressive demonstration of the feelings of the Colonial peoples when units of the Home Fleet carried out a cruise in the Caribbean. My noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty can bear witness to this from his own first-hand experience.
I am informed by the Governor that in Trinidad people in all walks of life vied with each other in their efforts to entertain the officers and ratings, who left many friends when they departed for home. The Navy responded in kind by throwing the ships open to public inspection and thousands of shore visitors availed themselves of this opportunity. Visits to other Colonies in the Caribbean were equally popular, and where harbour facilities were inadequate for the larger vessels the ships passed close inshore during, daylight, in order that the inhabitants might have a chance of seeing the Fleet. Many thousands lined the waterfront to watch the ships go by. Such is the spirit, shared alike by the peoples of our overseas Dependencies and the officers and men of the Royal Navy, which makes possible the successful execution of a joint defence policy. By giving the peoples of our overseas Dependencies a greater opportunity to play their full part in naval defence, we are trying to strengthen that old and traditional co-operation between the senior and the junior partners in the maritime defensive system which helps now, as it has always done in the past, to safeguard the freedom of the Colonies. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.7 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, we on this side of the House certainly welcome this Bill. It is, of course, a further recognition of the part played by the Colonies in the defence of the British Commonwealth. It appears, I think, from the explanation given by the noble

13
Earl who has presented the Bill, that it extends the power of a Colony to join together not only with another Colony but with a Protectorate or Dependency with a view to the establishment of a naval force. That is, of course, an extension of the policy of grouping Colonies together for administrative purposes which was foreshadowed in the Imperial Charter. In the past, the Mother Country has always been most grateful for the help given to her by her Colonies, which, in most cases, as your Lordships are aware, was by means of a monetary contribution. Now, perhaps, we may see the gradual emergence of a Colonial Navy. Such a Navy will entail much greater responsibility and a much greater liability on the Colonies concerned; that will certainly be a very welcome addition to Colonial recognition of the need for playing their full share in matters of defence, and we feel sure it will be very much appreciated in this country. There is no doubt that the spectacle of a man-o'-war, or a number of ships, actually owned by a group of Colonies will be a great stimulation to local patriotism—a greater stimulation, I would suggest, than the knowledge of any monetary contribution.
With regard to subsection (4) of Clause 1, which deals with service in the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, I hope the intention is that, so far as possible, the conditions of service should conform to those obtaining in this country. I would suggest that service in the Royal Navy is undoubtedly a very good training ground for Colonial peoples, and one which affords them a background of education and discipline which will be valuable to them in after life. It may not be perhaps generally known that at the end of the last war there were something over 15,000 Colonial seamen serving in the Royal Navy. I am sure your Lordships will be very glad to hear from the noble Earl who introduced this Bill that before long we may see the emergence of a Malayan Navy and an East African and West African Navy, and also, perhaps, a Navy from Fiji and the West Indies. We welcome this Bill, and I am sure we all hope that it will forge a further link in Colonial naval defence.
3.10 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but arising
14
from the noble Earl's remarks there is one point which occurs to me—namely, the question of the training that is to be provided for these forces. The noble Earl suggested that in order that these forces may attain their maximum efficiency—and it will be a pure waste of money if they do not—a staff of retired naval officers is to be employed in training them. Nobody can pay a greater tribute to the retired naval officer than I do, but if he has been out of the service for a period of years he is apt to get out of touch. I therefore hope to be assured that the noble Earl will not necessarily confine the officers employed on training to retired naval officers. I cannot help feeling that in order to secure maximum efficiency and co-ordination with the Royal Navy itself, it may be of advantage to include in the service officers of the Royal Navy. Nobody welcomes this Bill more than I do; I am sure it is of the greatest possible value. But the efficiency obtained from any Reserve formation in the Royal Navy (be it R.N.V.R. or R.N.R., or whatever it may be), depends entirely upon how much training can be given it; and that means training with modern weapons. I hope that these few points will be borne in mind. Subject to that, I entirely endorse what has been said by my noble friend.
3.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I should like to say that of course it is our intention that these Colonial naval units should have absolutely up-to-date training, and that they should be au fait with all the latest technical developments. The selection of the right type of officer to train them will clearly depend on this general principle of giving them a modern and up-to-date training. I can assure the noble Earl that the task of training will not be confined only to old "sea-dogs" who might, perhaps, be regarded as being a trifle out of date in their outlook. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for the very generous welcome which he has extended to this Bill on behalf of the Opposition. We appreciate it very much, particularly because the noble Lord himself speaks with so much experience of naval matters. I think there is nothing further for me to say beyond commending the Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS BILL
3.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I hope that this little Bill, which I believe to be quite uncontroversial, will commend itself to your Lordships as it has commended itself to many—indeed I think to all—of those organisations which are concerned with work for the welfare of pensioners. The Bill extends the operation of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act in two respects. The first respect is this: the Bill extends to the whole of the Armed Forces, when the present war ends, the same rights as they have to-day when, technically, the war is still continuing. We do this by substituting the words "any relevant service" for the words "war service" in the 1943 Act, and by the necessary alteration to the definition section.
The history of the matter is as follows. During the First World War pensions became the concern of the Ministry of Pensions, but by the Act of 1920 (I think my date is right), after the termination of that war, the administration of pensions was re-transferred to the Service Departments. But though pensions were, I have no doubt, most carefully administered by the Service Departments, which always desire to do the right and fair thing and of course are under Parliamentary check and control, at the same time there was no right of appeal from their decisions. When the Second World War started in 1939, it was thought desirable to transfer to the Ministry of Pensions, as had been done in the case of the First World War, the whole administration of pensions which in the inter-war period had been transferred back to the Service Departments. If, therefore, we were to follow the 1920 model at the end of this war—the actual date would be fixed by Order in Council—we should re-transfer the administration of pensions to the Service Departments. But we have decided to follow a different principle and to retain the war-time machinery. We believe
16
that to be justified by the fact that to-day, unlike after the First World War, there is compulsory service. Secondly we consider it to be justified because we believe—and I hope all your Lordships will agree with this—that these independent Tribunals, which can, if necessary, check and control the Minister and hear cases again, are most valuable things.
I must point out that the peace-time pensions codes—that is, the inter-war codes—were quite different. In some respects, I readily agree, they were somewhat less advantageous, but the principles were quite different. It is true that they were fixed by Parliament. The volunteers—for such they were—who served between the wars knew what the terms of their contracts were. They joined up on the basis of a contract. Equally, I must point out that we cannot possibly do anything now to take over again the inter-war cases, because some go back as far as twenty-nine years—the last go back nine years. In fact, in most cases there is no medical dossier or medical evidence at all, and it is hopeless to think that we can attempt to reopen all these cases. We cannot do so. But hereafter, if and when this war comes to an end and the Order in Council is made, we shall, of course, keep our necessary documents and we shall be able for the future to apply the provisions of this measure to all members of the Armed Forces, whether conscripts or volunteers; and, if thought proper by the Minister, the provisions can be extended to the Territorial Army also and the members of that Army will then all be subject to this code. People who may be dissatisfied with the decision of the Minister of Pensions will still be able to take their cases to independent Tribunals. That is the first object of the Bill—to continue into the post-war period the machinery which we had in the war and not to go back to the inter-war machinery.
The second point can be quite simply put, though it is a little complicated. The Machinery under the Act of 1943 was this. There was an appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and that Tribunal had the right to state its case so that the matter might go before a Judge of the High Court. There was one Judge in England and another Judge in Scotland. Of course, it happened, from time to time, that the Judge before whom the case went would give a decision which would throw

17
new light upon the Act—very often on matters relating to the onus of proof, or things of that kind. Now after such a pronouncement people came and said: "If only this decision had been known at the time when my case was heard (my case was disposed of several years ago, and I did not think fit to appeal or to ask for a case to be stated when it was decided against me), if only the Tribunal which heard my case had then known what the Judge has recently declared to be the law, my case would have been decided differently." Therefore these people said, let Special Review Tribunals be set up to go back over the masses of cases that have been decided and see whether in the light of the new decisions some of the decisions which were originally arrived at were wrong.
I confess that I was very hesitant about assenting to such a proposition. There used to be a Latin tag to the effect that "In the interests of a republic there should be an end to litigation." If you were to adopt a system with a hierarchy of courts, and when the highest court pronounced a decision you thereupon asked for every case which had been decided in a contrary sense to be re-opened, you would never get finality. So it was with some reluctance and great hesitation that I assented. But I asked for and received an assurance that I should never be asked to do this thing again. That assurance was given me by people who are able to speak with authority in such matters.
So we set up these Special Review Tribunals. What they do is this. After the Minister has gone over the cases very carefully, collected all the material facts, got together the material evidence, the case, if he still rejects the claim, is referred to these Special Review Tribunals. If they think that an injustice was done they can recommend the Minister to put it right. The recommendation is not binding upon the Minister, but in practice he always honours such recommendations. There are some 15,000 cases which are likely to be reviewed in the first instance by the Ministry of Pensions, of which some 9,000 have been or are likely to be submitted to the Tribunals.
Here let me say, because I think there has been some misapprehension about the matter, that I will readily create as many Tribunals as are wanted to cope with the flow of cases and dispose of them at the earliest possible moment. At
18
present there are five Tribunals. Each one consumes about twenty cases a week, so that they have to receive a hundred cases a week. Cases are coming from the Ministry of Pensions at the rate of fifty a week. I am not complaining, because I realise that it is very necessary for the Ministry to go thoroughly into these cases and have all the documents ready and available, but I would not like it to be thought that the delay in dealing with these cases has anything whatever to do with the number of Tribunals. I appointed the fifth Tribunal as recently as November and I am very much afraid that in the course of the next few days I may have to give the members notice and disband it because I cannot feed it. It does not depend on how many cases are in the reservoir, but on the rate of flow through the conduit pipes leading from the reservoir to the Tribunals, and that, in its turn, depends on the rate at which the Ministry, taking all proper care and not rushing the work, can get cases ready.
The ordinary Pensions Appeal Tribunals deal both with the initial claims, as to whether a disability is due to or aggravated by the war, and with questions of the extent or duration of the disability. The Special Review Tribunals cannot deal with the latter. They can say, having investigated the case, whether a mistake has been made on the former claim, and then the Ministry, accepting the decision, can assess the disability, at say 30 per cent., or what you will. But if the pensioner wishes to appeal against the assessment, he cannot go to the Special Review Tribunal and say that this is unfair and that his rate of pension ought to be at least 50 per cent., because the decision of the Special Review Tribunal on the initial claim was not a binding decision—it was merely advice to the Ministry, which the Ministry may or may not accept. I think that is wrong. We ought to allow those cases which have gone before the Special Review Tribunals to go before the ordinary Pensions Appeal Tribunals if a dispute arises on such a matter as the degree of disablement or the extent of its duration. That is what the second part of the Bill provides. This Bill extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It received a warm welcome in another place and I am certain it will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor).
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I have no doubt the House will be glad to accept this Bill and to play its part in having it placed upon the Statute Book. The matter is a little complicated, but the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has explained it as well as anybody can and I will not attempt to repeat his explanation. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount said a word about the Pensions Appeal Tribunals, because they have done a very useful piece of work. They have in many cases corrected views which had been taken in the Ministry of Pensions and which turned out to be the wrong views—as is sometimes inevitable—and have secured that justice was done to the applicant who deserved it.
The Pensions Appeal Tribunals were established in 1943. I had a certain part in framing the legislation and afterwards in appointing them. It was not an entirely easy thing to do, because in the very middle and pinch of the war it was difficult to staff such Tribunals. Your Lordships may remember that the chairman of the Tribunal was to be a lawyer or solicitor of several years' standing and another member was to be a qualified medical man. Those were people most difficult to find in those very busy days. The third member was a man or woman who was chosen having regard to the status of the applicant. If a claim was made by an officer, the third member was a demobilised officer, but if the claim was made by another rank, the third member was drawn from a similar category. I have no doubt at all—and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will confirm me in this—that we owe a great deal to these people, who worked in different parts of the country (for there were a large number of Pensions Appeal Tribunals) and who have done a good job and have given a great deal of satisfaction.
The extension that is now proposed has been explained to the House. There is no doubt at all as to Clause 1. We do not want to limit the jurisdiction of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals to cases in which the issue is whether the injury is attributed to war service, because we have people now who are serving under the
20
National Service Act who are engaged in their duties as members of the Forces even though they are not actually engaged in war. It is manifest that there ought to be that extension.
I agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that the second clause is a little more difficult to put clearly and to be completely satisfied about. The noble and learned Viscount, not for the first time, has explained, with that air of sweet reasonableness we all admire, that though he does not like it all, he is prepared to accept it. May I say, with respect, that in this case he is perfectly right, because there is rather a special feature which has to be borne in mind in regard to Clause 2. As the noble and learned Viscount said, there have been quite a number of decisions, very striking decisions, as to the proper application of the law about these pensions, largely made by an English Judge whom I need not name but who has devoted himself specially to the business, under the direction of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor.
What followed was that in 1946—I think it was in April, 1946—the Ministry of Pensions set up a special body, a non-statutory Appeal Tribunal, to reconsider all the cases which might have been decided more favourably to the applicant if only the law at the time of the decision had been more accurately understood and expounded. The Ministry went so far as that and, having got so far, there is a great deal of good sense in saying that, though the decision might have been made some time ago, if these people were found to be entitled to more favourable treatment as the law is now understood and they were not satisfied with the actual amount which they were awarded or the period for which they were to draw their pension, they should have the opportunity of appealing to a Tribunal. That, I understand, is the general purpose of the second clause. Having had in the past to spend many hours on this horribly complicated subject, I have no doubt myself that it is a perfectly just and proper thing to do, and I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has proposed it.
He referred to one other matter (it is, indeed, a point on which I believe some people have raised a question) as to

21
whether this present Bill goes far enough. If I may say so, I agree with the Lord Chancellor that it cannot very well go further than it does. The situation is unfortunate, because it leaves untouched the case of those who made an application for pension in respect of death or disability between August, 1921 (which was for this purpose the statutory end of the 1914–18 war), and September 3, 1939. Those claims cannot be brought within the range of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals—and I do not really see how they could, for the reasons which the Lord Chancellor has given. One cannot decide a matter fairly or judicially such a long time afterwards if one has no records on which to judge the facts.
What I should hope—and I think the Lord Chancellor would probably not be unwilling to confirm me on this point—is that if there is a case in such a period, where there is material which enables the Ministry of Pensions to say that it is a fair case for compensation, consideration will be given to the possibility of an ex gratia award. That is essentially a matter within the discretion of the Department. I think the experience of most of us who have followed the administration of the Ministry of Pensions, both in the time of Sir Walter Womersley and since, is that that Ministry are inspired with a great desire to do what is fair and decent in regard to the people who have suffered in the public service in this way. I therefore think there will be no difference of opinion between us about this matter. We are all very glad that the Government have found a way in which to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals in a manner which, I have every reason to think, will give a great deal of satisfaction to all who are specially interested in protecting and promoting the rights of men who have been wounded or who have died in the public service.
3.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may reply shortly, I should like to say this. I thoroughly endorse what the noble and learned Viscount has said about the debt of gratitude which we owe to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals. They have done, and are doing, very fine and useful work. With regard to the consideration about the inter-war years,
22
may I say this? The noble and learned Viscount made a slip when he said that it was a matter for the Ministry of Pensions. As I understand it, it is a matter for the Service Departments.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That is quite right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to hold out any hopes, or to set up further Tribunals to deal with the Service Departments, but it is always open to them—as has been done—to look at a particular case and to put it right. I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CERTIFICATES FROM EXAMINERS
The LORD CHANCELOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

ASHDOWN FOREST,

BARNSLEY CORPORATION,

BOLTON CORPORATION,

BRADFORD CORPORATION,

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION,

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS),

CREWE CORPORATION,

DOVER HARBOUR,

FALMOUTH DOCKS,

GRIMSBY CORPORATION,

HALIFAX CORPORATION,

HARWICH HARBOUR,

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION,

HURST PARK RACE COURSE,

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS),

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL,

MERSEY TUNNEL,

OLDBURY CORPORATION,

PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS,

RHODESIA RAILWAYS LIMITED (PENSION SCHEMES AND CONTRACTS),

RIVER GREAT OUSE (FLOOD PROTECTION),

ROCHDALE CANAL,

ROYAL ALEXANDRA AND ALBERT SCHOOL,

ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE,

SLOUGH CORPORATION.

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR,

23

STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD,

SWINDON CORPORATION,

TEIGNMOUTH AND SHALDON BRIDGE,

TYNE IMPROVEMENT,

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM,

URMSTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL,

WANDSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS,

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LEE VALLEY AND LUTON AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1948
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons under Section 3 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, that no Petition has been presented against the Order: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act); and ordered to lie on the Table.
LICHFIELD RURAL (WHITTINGTON) HOUSING CONFIRMATION ORDER, 1949 NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1948
Special Procedure Orders (together with certificates from the Minister of Health): Laid before the House, pursuant to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and ordered to lie on the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARINERS) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1949
Draft Regulations, made by the Minister of National Insurance under the National Insurance Act, 1946: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before four o'clock.