HL Deb 23 May 1962 vol 240 cc1048-60

6.25 p.m.

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the rise in the cost of living and also in the standard of living in the United Kingdom since April, 1961, they will consider—when the national finances allow—a major improvement in war pensions to ensure that disabled ex-service men and women shall enjoy a full share of "the good things which a steadily expanding economy will bring"; and whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of a report made for St. Dunstan's by Miss D. C. Paige of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, regarding the comparative value of pensions for war blinded in certain Commonwealth countries and in South Africa.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps even at this late hour your Lordships will tolerate a brief explanation. This is a shot—perhaps a first shot—in the campaign which may develop over the next year or two for better pensions. I should like to say at once that it is not a shot in anger, certainly not at the present Minister of Pensions. My right honourable friend in that office has done the very best he could over his long period of tenure to meet the wishes of ex-Servicemen's organisations and to help us.

In November, 1960, I thanked the Minister for what was then a substantial improvement in war pensions and brought the figures which are payable to this class of Her Majesty's subjects up to a point at which they took account favourably of the rise in the cost of living which had taken place during the preceding years. I also congratulated the then Government on the fact that the cost-of-living index had remained level for the previous three years, which I think was a notable achievement. I further called attention to the fact—which is the most important one I want to draw to your Lordships' attention—that, for the first time in the history of war pensions, a Government in the United Kingdom had established rates of war pensions in Britain which took account of the standard of living.

I want to explain in just one sentence that in this context the standard of living and the cost of living are not the same thing. You may relate figures to rises in the cost of living and it may look superficially fair, but that is not taking account of the rise in the standard of living which is enjoyed by the people as a whole. In the last General Election the Conservative Party announced the doctrine that they would try to see that these men had—and I quote— a full share of the good things which an expanding economy will bring".

They kept that promise eighteen months ago. I have no doubt that they will-do their very best to keep it again. But I bring this matter to the notice of the Government as early as this in order that they may have plenty of time to think.

St. Dunstan's, which is a society represented in all the British countries, had a conference in 1960 at which representatives from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa came to meet us here in London to discuss our mutual affairs. We found many differences between the war pensions in regard to patterns, systems and rates. I therefore thought that it might not be a bad thing, and that it would even be an interesting and helpful thing, to have an inquiry set on foot which would make a comparison of war pensions throughout the Commonwealth countries and South Africa; and I instituted that.

Miss D. C. Paige, who was associated with the National Institute of Economic and Social Research at Cambridge, very kindly made this inquiry, with the aid of the various authorities throughout the Commonwealth and in South Africa. The report she has now made is a very long one, and I will only very briefly tell your Lordships what are its principal findings. I have sent it to the leaders of the Opposition in this House and in the other place and to Ministers concerned, and I have asked whether copies can be placed in the Library. I commend this report to anyone interested in this subject of war pensions, whether for the war-blinded, the severely disabled, or all ranks of disabled men, including partial pensioners, and indeed war widows, because many of the considerations in the report will be found relevant.

It is very hard to compare war pensions in five different countries because the pattern is different, the background is different, the costs of living are different, the standards of living are different, and what is required in one country is not required in another. Miss Paige started by finding out what were the actual figures paid to this class—the war blinded men—but, of course, similar considerations apply to all who might be called 100 per cent. war pensioners. The exercise was to find out what were their pensions in these various countries, then to average them (because there are all kinds of fringe allowances, marriage allowances and so on, which would vitiate the comparison of any one figure) and then to translate them into sterling.

The report shows in Table 1 that Canada comes out well at the top for amount; Australia comes second, New Zealand is third, the United Kingdom is fourth, and South Africa is fifth. In the second table, the inquiry set about relating these amounts to prices in the various countries, and in that table the same list of priorities persists. In the third table, the inquirers tried to find out how generously each country was looking after its war pensioners in relation to the way in which ordinary men and women, their brothers, their cousins, or their neighbours were living, and taking into account all kinds of amenities, enjoyments, standards of (food and housing which they would have. In that relative standard-of-living table, we still find Canada at the top, Australia is second, the United Kingdom then comes up slightly, New Zealand goes down to fourth place, and South Africa is still fifth.

However, my Lords, only Canada, among all these countries, has really kept her war pensioners in line with the rising standards of living of her people. Neither Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, nor South Africa has done so. In the case of this country, we have done very well over the past years to try to catch up for the years which the locusts have eaten, because there were many years during which these war pensioners were not properly looked after, when the standard of living was not taken into account, and when even the cost of living was forgotten. We have done well in this country to try to catch up, but even so we have not really caught up with the standard of living. We cannot say that our severely disabled war pensioners have as much of the fruits of the nation's increased prosperity as we should wish.

In the last eighteen months the cost of living has gone up by seven points. We have had the "pay pause", followed by the "guiding light", followed by three buoyant speeches from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; also the setting up of the N.E.D.C., which has set itself the task of finding out if the production of the United Kingdom can be raised by 4 per cent. per annum. It is believed that, if it were raised by anything like that amount, there would be a tremendous increase in the standard of living.

My Lords, I submit that if there is a substantial rise in the general standard of living, we here in Britain should be able proudly to say that our war pensioners are sharing it. I raise this matter, therefore, and ask this Question in order to invite Her Majesty's Government to tell me that they have seen this report to which I have called attention, and to give me an assurance that they will give their best and sympathetic attention to this matter either next year or, at any rate, during the lifetime of this Parliament.

6.35 p.m.

LORD KENSWOOD

My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships have been impressed as much as I have been by the eloquent and irresistible speech to which you have just listened. As a civilian blind person, I feel that there are just one or two points which I can contribute to this discussion. I am not a beneficiary in any respect under the magnificent St. Dunstan's scheme. They have done magnificent work, and I think it is important that the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, should be listened to thoroughly. But what baffles me, my Lords, is why this plea should have been made at all in this House. It is quite puzzling.

Surely, there are two aspects which those who have control of our finances should bear in mind. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has said that it is fair, it is right, that the standard of Living of those who have suffered so seriously in these last two wars should keep pace with, or possibly advance on, the general standard of living of the people of this country. I do not know what the demand of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, would amount to. It is a plea which goes very deep. I do not know whether it is possible for the noble Lord to have any figure in mind but, before we can demand that the Exchequer should pay out more money, we should have some sort of figure in mind. I cannot imagine any figure within the next few years being such that we, as a proud and wealthy nation, could not accept. Would it be £100,000 a year? Would it be £200,000 a year? I cannot imagine that it could be more than that. Perhaps the noble Lord who will answer for the Government will be able to tell us something about this. I do not even know the latest figure of people for whom St. Dunstan's cares. I think at one time it was 5,000, but I believe it is now more in the neighbourhood of 2,000 people who are alive. But would it really amount to very much?

The other aspect of this problem is not a financial one, but is a question of what is it fair to do. What is it just to do? I put it on the lowest possible level. It is indecent—and I say this forcibly—for the Government, for the Treasury, to boggle at paying out such a small sum of money. We can all afford it, even if it means a little extra taxation somewhere. That is why I feel very strongly about this matter. As I say, my Lords, I am moved very deeply by this problem. Here we have a small number of men, who have been deprived of what I consider to be one of the most precious possessions of their lives, and yet we boggle at doing the decent thing.

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

Would my noble friend allow me to interrupt? I am so grateful to him, but nobody is "boggling". The Government have done well in this matter in the last ten years. It would cost about £11 million to do what I want done, and not £100,000; but nobody is "boggling".

LORD KENSWOOD

I am rather surprised at that. I have been trying to work out the figure; but, so far as St. Dunstan's is concerned, I should like to hear the figures explained by the noble Lord who is to speak on behalf of the Government. Even if the sum is £11 million, I do not think it should prove to be too much.

I am impelled by the circumstances of this debate to resort to a statement which, to me, is altogether nauseating; and it is one which goes against the grain, for I hate sentimentality about blindness. But surely the members of the Government who have, or who should have, this matter in hand cannot have thought about it at all. I see opposite me, on the Government Benches, people whom I know to be generous, decent people, anxious to help their fellow-beings; and yet, as a body, the Treasury do not seem to understand what is at stake. I ask them, therefore, to give particular thought again to this.

Are they so unimaginative? I put it to you, my Lords—and this is where it goes against the grain for me to say this: there must be a great many men at St. Dunstan's, if not the majority (my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale will correct me if I am wrong), who have never actually seen their wives, their children or their grandchildren. I know what it means to be deprived of that comfort. I know what it is to be deprived of such experiences when people are talking around us about beautiful nature, beautiful sunsets, beautiful scenery, beautiful pictures, the ballet and so forth. What it very often means—and I have experienced this—is an extra twist of the knife in the wound.

I ask you, my Lords: was it really necessary for this debate to take place here? Could not the Treasury have settled this straight away, instead of putting us to this, as I think, most disagreeable experience? I ask you, therefore, to pass on the question of pensions altogether. I think that any pension awarded should be linked with the standard of living. Now is the time to consider this. We may not have another opportunity within the next few years. The sooner we corns to some sort of decision the better. We hear on all sides that we are now facing another war. We have faced two wars for our very protection, for survival: we are now facing another war for our very survival—an economic war. We are asking the workers in factories, and so on, to give of their best and to increase their output so that we may compete with the other countries of the world. It would make a very bad impression indeed if they felt that, though they were exerting themselves to the full, the country was not prepared to allow those who had fallen victim to the risks to which they are exposed also to have some share in the increased standard of living.

6.45 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I think it right, as one of those who habitually talks in your Lordships' House on Service matters, that I should rise for a few moments to say how grateful we all are to my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale for asking this Question, and to give him all the support one possibly can. But the hour is late, and so I shall not attempt to follow my noble friend in all the arguments he produced for the increase of ex-Service and disabled men's pensions. I would simply say two things. First of all, my noble friend touched on the question of widows' pensions. I feel, as I think he does, that this question of disability pensions would be easier to tackle if it were tackled in a slightly wider context, so as to include other deserving causes of the same sort, such as the pensions of widows.

The second thing I would say is this. I think my noble friend said in his speech that the season was arriving when we should go forth to battle about pensions. It most certainly is. It will be within the recollection of the House, I think, that a number of us who are anxious to urge the cause for pensions refrained from doing so last year only because of the national financial emergency which we were told was taking place. Now, in the face of certain more buoyant speeches, to which reference has been made, I feel, as I am sure my noble friend does, that the time has come to renew our representations. Inflation has gone several steps since last year, and I do not think we can wait very much longer. I do not expect my noble friend who is going to reply to speak in a very expansive way, if only for the reason that I believe that a Motion of the same sort has been set down in another place. All I should like to do, therefore, is to say how grateful we should be to my noble friend for having asked this Question, and hope that our proceedings here will prove some reinforcement to what is to happen in a day or two in another place.

6.48 p.m.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, I, too, am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, not only for giving me early notice of this Question but also for the very clear and fair way in which he introduced it. May I assure him straight away that the considerations referred to in the first part of his Question are very much in the minds of Her Majesty's Government? My right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions is aware of Miss Paige's thoughtful and balanced study, A Comparison of Pensions for the War Blinded in Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, and is giving it the attention it deserves. Most of your Lordships will not yet have had the opportunity of studying this report, but this House would, I am sure, wish to pay tribute to St. Dunstan's and to my noble friend, who is chairman of that unique organisation, for commissioning it from a lady whose reputation for careful and unbiased statistical work is no doubt known to many noble Lords.

Like my noble friend, I will not weary your Lordships by exploring too deeply the statistical basis of the report, but I should refer briefly to the problems with which Miss Paige had to contend. Comparisons between one country and another are at all times difficult to make. Exchange rates do not necessarily reflect the value of a currency in the home market. Economic, social and climatic differences between countries mean that money paid by way of pension or earnings will be spent differently in different parts of the world. The extent of State provision for families, old people, sickness and schools will mean that there is more or less to be provided for these matters out of personal income. Expenditure on fuel and housing varies with the climate; and domestic service may be very cheap in one area and so expensive that it is rarely bought in another.

As my noble friend has explained, Miss Paige has constructed average pensions for the blind to take account of supplementary allowances and State provision for age so as to compare the pensions in three ways: in equivalent sterling value; in equivalent sterling value adjusted for price levels; in equivalent sterling value adjusted for price levels and for living standards in the countries concerned. It might be thought that one need go no further than establishing what the average pension for the blind will buy. But what is regarded as an acceptable standard of living varies from one country to another, and I think noble Lords will agree that it is a very salutary process to go further and establish what the pension will buy in relation to what other people in the country concerned are able to buy. This comparison is intended to show how generous each country is to its war pensioners within the framework of the general standard of living of that country.

I should be misleading your Lordships if I were to imply that my right honourable friend has endorsed all the methods and results of the report. Equally respectable statistical exercises, in what is clearly a complicated and difficult field, could show somewhat different results. But I can say that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, Miss Paige's conclusions as to the relative current level of war pensions for the blind, as averaged in the sense described in the five countries, appear reasonable on her chosen statistical basis. Nor would my right honourable friend dissent from the general trend of the real values, and of the real values as related to living standards, of the average pensions for the blind as described in the report. I suggest to this House that this general picture given by the report is an encouraging one.

My Lords, if I may, I should like at this point to say one or two words in answer to the very moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood. He asked me what sort of numbers of totally blind we were dealing with. The figure for the totally blind war pensioners in this country at the moment is 1,500. The last increase in pensions cost £11 million. I am afraid that I have not the figure for the numbers looked after by St. Dunstan's. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale can help me out on that point.

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

My Lords, it would be about 2,200. That includes persons who axe so blind that they cannot see to read or to get about, but are not totalty blind. The number of totally blind is always much more limited than the number of what might be called the technically or the effectively blind.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.

There is one thing the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, said with which I am afraid I cannot agree, and that was when he asked why Lord Fraser of Lonsdale had to make this plea at all. I think it is perfectly right that such pleas on behalf of the blind should be made by my noble friend, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Kenswood, even though the Government do have this problem very much in mind. It does no harm at all for Members of your Lordships' House, and of another place, to watch the interests of these various people. My noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale was asking for a share in the good things to come. He said he was giving early notice and giving Her Majesty's Government time to think, which I think is a very proper function of Members of your Lordships' House.

While we find that in real terms the United Kingdom average pension for the blind is well below that of Canada, somewhat below that of Australia and New Zealand and slightly above that of South Africa, when further adjusted for living standards the United Kingdom average pension for the blind, although still well below that of Canada, comes just about that of Australia, 10 per cent. above New Zealand, and 30 per cent. above that of South Africa.

Taking developments since 1946, the report states: Britain is the only country where pensions have increased more rapidly than earnings", particularly since 1956. This increase has in Britain (and to a less extent in New Zealand) been concentrated on the most seriously affected—that is, those receiving supplements. According to the report, the real value of the average British pension for the blind has increased by 69 per cent. overall, by 50 per cent. for working pensioners, and by over 80 per cent. for those getting unemployability supplement. The report states quite fairly that the real value of the average pension for the blind in 1946 was only about half that of the other countries, but that despite the advances made we are even now less generous in relation to living standards than all the other four countries were in 1946". This may be misinterpreted, for, as I have already said, Miss Paige found that the real value of our average pension for the blind has been increased substantially.

It does show, of course, that in 1946 the other countries were paying the average blind pensioner much more highly in relation to living standards in those countries than they are now. The real value of the pension has, except in South Africa, been increased, or at least maintained, but has not been improved in proportion with the rising living standards of the other people in those countries. While we have been overtaking them on the test of comparative living standards, they have not maintained their own very high performance just after the war.

Miss Paige's report contains a number of other interesting comparisons of the real value of provision made for different categories of blinded war pensioners. Neither these detailed figures nor the broad comparisons of the average pensions for the blind of which I have been speaking can cover the whole ground. Indeed, a most commendable feature of the report is its recognition of the limitations of a statistical approach to this particular problem. The report itself states: In each country the blind man is entitled to some extra benefits, which cannot be shown in money terms, but which should be taken into account when comparing standards of living. It seems clear that no other country provides as many social security benefits as Britain and, as the blind pensioner shares in these benefits, his pension does not have to stretch to cover the emergencies of sickness and old age which a Commonwealth pensioner may have to provide for out of his own resources. In Britain, neither the blind man nor his family need worry about the cost of going to the doctor or being in hospital—they are covered under the National Health Service. In none of the other countries is there free medical treatment of the pensioner's dependants, and only in New Zealand is the blind man himself covered for everything". It is not practicable to quantify all those various additional elements in the different countries, including, for example, the Home-Help Service in this country and a measure of free entertainment in Australia, nor the value of benefits from welfare services, including important voluntary services, of which St. Dunstan's is an outstanding example, for the blind; but there is no doubt that the general comparison of "fringe" benefits is heavily in favour of the British pensioner.

It is important to keep this advantage in mind when considering not only war pensions for the blind but war pensions generally. Noble Lords will recall that, in addition to vast expenditure on social services, from which some war pensioners benefit like other members of society, our own war pensions bill for the two wars is still running at more than £100 million a year—about the same as the expenditure in all the other four countries put together. The increases in April, 1961, costing over £11 million a year gave a rise in real standards and made the purchasing power of the basic rate higher than it has ever been since the war. This is still the position, notwithstanding that the Retail Prices index has risen from 113.3 in April, 1961, to 119.7 in April, 1962. The possibility of an automatic link between pension rates and a cost-of-living or other kind of index has been considered on a number of occasions in recent years. But it has always been accepted that changes in benefit rates when they come should be the result of conscious and deliberate decision, taking into account all the relevant factors, social and economic.

It will be recalled that after the 1914 War there was a scheme whereby war pensions would be adjusted automatically by reference to movements in the cost-of-living index. When the cost of living fell and war pensions should have fallen, too, this could not be done in practice, and eventually the whole scheme had to be dropped. The fact that since the last War the Government has had to make a conscious decision as to what changes may be required has enabled changes of greater flexibility to be made to meet the needs of war pensioners. The numerous enlargements of the system of supplementary allowances, which contribute substantially to the satisfactory position shown by Miss Paige's report on blind pensioners, are a witness to this, whilst the basic rate of pension itself, when coming into force in April, 1961, was at a higher level than would have been indicated by the retail price index.

In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute once more to Miss Paige's balanced and stimulating report. But the report itself shows the limits of this kind of study, which cannot provide an easy short cut to fixing war pension rates. All the relevant circumstances, human as well as economic, have to be taken into account. I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government will continue to do their duty in this respect.

LORD KENSWOOD

My Lords, before the conclusion of this debate, I wonder whether the noble Lord would clarify one point. I am afraid that his explanation has muddled me more than ever. We are told that there are 2,200 blinded ex-Servicemen under St. Dunstan's and that the cost of bringing their standard of living up to the general standard of the country would be £11 million. I am entirely puzzled about how that is figured out.

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

My Lords, we are not here concerned with £11 million and with 2,000 blind soldiers. But if the Government, as I suspect they will, review war pensions next year, or during this Parliament, they are bound to do it for all war pensions, and of them are nearly 1 million. Last time they reviewed war pensions, as the noble Lord has told the House, it cost £11 million. My case was that a review that would satisfy us would cost £11 million, but that is not for these few blind soldiers. I hope that explains the matter to my noble friend.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale for his intervention.