Sitting of 26 April 1949

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 14th April, 1949, for the Easter Recess—met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SWINDON CORPORATION BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Pay and Allowances, Malaya
    Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now reconsider the local overseas allowances paid to troops in Malaya.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): My right hon. Friend has no evidence from the local military authorities in the Far East which suggests that the local overseas allowance is inadequate for the purpose for which
    2
    it is issued. He does not therefore consider that it needs to be reviewed at present.
    Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that local prices bear no relation to the real rate of exchange—for example, a bottle of beer for a soldier out there costs about 5s. 6d.?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, but these matters are considered in estimating the rate of allowance. On that we had considerable evidence, both written and verbal, when the amount of the allowance was determined.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that his point of view is quite wrong in this, that the troops are put into a much worse position than civilians of equal status, and that it is already causing a considerable amount of bad feeling?
    Mr. Stewart: I must repeat that this allowance was fixed in the light of evidence most carefully collected, and there has been no evidence from the troops since the time it was fixed, that there is any reason for reviewing it.

    Forces, Transjordan (Cost)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what has been the average weekly cost of maintaining our Forces at Aqaba during April.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Information is not available centrally from which the cost of keeping the force at Aqaba could be estimated.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister give an approximate idea of our expenditure.

    3
    whether this expenditure is to be continued, and what steps are to be taken to reduce it?
    Mr. Stewart: I think my hon. Friend is aware that it is not the practice to give figures which would throw light on the strength of the Army, other than the division between this country and B.A.O.R. and all other overseas theatres together. Even, therefore, if it were possible to make the estimate which my hon. Friend requests, I doubt if it would be in the public interest to give it.
    Major Tufton Beamish: Is there any reason to suppose that the cost would be any more if the troops were somewhere other than in Aqaba?

    Overpayments (Deductions)
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardships suffered by individuals of all ranks as a result of the practice of deducting overpayments from subsequent pay; and whether he will now issue instructions that, in all cases where the over-issue was not the fault of the individual concerned, any overpayment is not to be recovered but to be charged against public funds.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The recipient of an overpayment of Army pay or allowances is normally liable, in principle, to meet in full the public claim which is created against him by the overpayment. In cases, however, where the overpayment has been received and spent in good faith and undue hardship would be inflicted by the enforcement of this principle, it is the practice to limit recovery to an amount which the recipient can repay within a reasonable period, and the balance is written off. My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to accept the suggestion that in all cases where the overissue was not the fault of the recipient, the public claim against him should be waived entirely.
    Mr. Amory: Will the Minister bear in mind that in civil employment, when wages are overpaid as a result of an error of the management, it is quite exceptional for any attempt to be made to recover the overpayment, and will he also bear in mind that it is the experience of hon.
    4
    Members who have to deal with these cases that great hardship results from recovering overpayment?
    Mr. Stewart: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that the practice he describes is invariable, and it could not be made so in the public service. As to cases of hardship, we are always willing to look at each individual case on its merits.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the hon. Member be good enough to see that the earlier part of his answer is communicated to the officials of the Treasury and of the Inland Revenue because, so far as my own constituency is concerned, it is certainly not known and there are a number of cases of refusal on the part of the officials to make any allowance.
    Colonel Dower: Can the hon. Gentleman look at the machinery—there are unquestionably certain hard cases arising—which is put into operation for testing whether they can repay or not, because that is where the fault takes place? Sometimes they take a generous point of view, sometimes they do not.
    Mr. Stewart: I should be willing to look at that, but I have myself had experience of a number of these hard cases, and my general experience is that they are reasonably and sympathetically treated.

    Officers (Outfit Allowances)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War why arrangements have not yet been made to credit the accounts of officers commissioned between October, 1948, and mid-January, 1949, with the higher rate of outfit allowances.
    Mr. M. Stewart: These arrangements have been authorised in recent instructions for Army officers concerned except those of the Reserve Forces, the Territorial Army and the Cadet Forces, for whom appropriate instructions will be issued shortly.
    Mr. Low: Will the hon. Gentleman see that delay of this kind does not take place in future when new allowances are introduced, because it causes great hardship?
    Mr. Stewart: The delay in this case applied to the retrospective working of the concession that was made. There

    5
    were a number of matters, such as definition of eligibility, that made it difficult to reach an earlier agreement.

  GERMAN EX-PRISONER-OF-WAR
  Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War why Heinz Muhlmeyer, a German Signal Corps officer, has received no prisoner-of-war pay for the period he was in British custody, namely, 15th July, 1945, to 4th July, 1946, in spite of the fact that he was given prisoner-of-war status and eventually discharged from Prisoner-of-war Discharge Centre No. 2.
  Mr. M. Stewart: I am inquiring into the facts of this case; but owing to the dispersal of various prisoners-of-war records the inquiries are inevitably taking some considerable time. I will, however, write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
  Mr. Stokes: But is my hon. Friend aware that this is not a unique case, and is there any administrative reason why these matters should take so long?
  Mr. Stewart: The administrative reason is the one I have already given to my hon. Friend, the dispersal of the records some time ago, but I hope to give him an answer on this case before long.
  Mr. Stokes: That is just my point. If the matter had been dealt with promptly, the records would not have been dispersed.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Cemetery Scheme, Goring-on-Thames
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SKEFFINGTON-LODGE:
    7. To ask the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware of the proposal of the Henley Rural District Council and the Goring Parish Council to provide a new cemetery on a site in Croft Road in the village of Goring-on-Thames; and whether, as this offends against good planning and is protested by many local inhabitants, he will represent to the authorities that they should not proceed with the scheme in its present form.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I want to apologise for a piece of bad English, which, I think, is a hang-over from my recent visit to the United States. The words "protested by" should read "opposed by."
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): I understand that this proposal has not yet been referred to the Oxfordshire County Council, which is the Planning Authority for the area. Until I know their views I am unable to comment.

    Kensington Square
    Mr. Hollisasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning for what reason his Department overruled the decision or the London County Council that Kensington Square was residential and permitted a development there which will destroy the character of the Square.
    Mr. King: My right hon. Friend's decision on this case allows the construction of an unloading dock on land at the rear of houses on the north side of Kensington Square, with no direct access to the Square. It was based on an urgent need to relieve traffic congestion in the streets leading to the Square. The decision does not affect the residential use of any house in the Square nor will it, in my opinion, destroy the Present character of the Square.
    Mr. Hollis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the London County Council scheme would equally have prevented the congestion of traffic in the neighbourhood without destroying the Square?
    Mr. King: It would have had that effect, but there were other disadvantages attaching to the scheme.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Death Benefit Claim, Stafford
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of National Insurance whether, in considering the claim for industrial death benefit of Mr. E. H. Gill, of 75 Stone Road, Stafford, in respect of his son's death from typhoid fever, it was decided that his son's death arose out of, and in the course of his employment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): Yes, Sir.

    Pensions (War Widows)
    Mr. J. H. Hareasked the Minister of National Insurance if lie will give an estimate of the cost of granting old age pensions in full to war widows of the 1914–18 war who, under the old insurance scheme, would have qualified for an unconditional pension of 10s. a week at age 70.
    Mr. Steele: I regret that this information is not available and could not be obtained without special inquiry, which I do not think would be justified. These widows will in general be able to qualify for the new retirement pension: for those too old to contribute under the new scheme the right to a 10s. pension at 70 under the old arrangements has been preserved.
    Mr. Hare: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, instead of the 10s., these people should qualify for 26s.?
    Mr. Steele: That is an entirely different matter.

    Assistance Board
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that considerable delays are taking place in the granting of assistance by the National Assistance Board; and whether be will take steps to deal with this position.
    Mr. Steele: Inquiries do not show that the time taken to deal with two cases which my hon. Friend has sent was unreasonable but I will let him have further particulars by letter in due course.

  EMPLOYMENT (REDUNDANT WORKERS)
  Mr. Proctorasked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to require all employers desirous of declaring workers redundant and dismissing them, to consult with his Department and to notify his Department of the reasons for dismissals and redundancy, and to give reasonable time for negotiations and consultation with the trade unions concerned or the consultative machinery established in the industry.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir. Employers are encouraged to
  8
  give employment exchanges early notice of prospective redundancies and workers are encouraged through their trade unions to register as long as possible before discharge so that efforts may be made to find other work for them with little or no interval of unemployment, but I am unable to agree that it would be desirable or practicable to institute the compulsory measures suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain cases the workers allege that they are dismissed without proper consultation; and does he not think that this matter merits further consideration in view of the recent industrial disputes, especially in the Manchester area?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: This matter of joint consultation is always the subject of negotiation with employers and trade unions and we are applying as much persuasive pressure as we can to avoid those things mentioned by my hon. Friend.

  SCOTLAND

    Aged People (Care)
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what accommodation is being provided for the care of aged people, incapable of looking after themselves and who do not require the services of trained nurses.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Local authorities have a duty under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act to provide residential accommodation for aged people who require care and attention which they cannot get in any other way. The authorities are to carry out this duty in accordance with schemes approved by the Secretary of State. The schemes so far received show that local authorities are anxious to make headway; but present restrictions on building limit developments mainly to the adaptation of existing properties.
    Mrs. Cullen: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread indignation in the City of Glasgow because of the delay in trying to solve this very serious problem?
    Mr. Woodburn: The City of Glasgow, of course, has a great many problems of building. It has houses, hospitals and feeding centres to build, and this is just one of the many problems which are dependent upon the progress of the building trade.
    Mr. Carmichael: Has the right hon. Gentleman received the reports, which he indicated would reach him by mid-April, from local authorities on this problem of accommodation for aged people, which I raised some time ago; and has he any evidence to show that the old people will, at a reasonably early date, get this accommodation, which they need so very much?
    Mr. Woodburn: That is still being investigated. The problem which the hon. Gentleman raised was that of the sick aged people, who come under the regional hospital board. I am going to try to get together all the bodies responsible for the old people to see whether all the different agencies can be fitted in.

    Sheep Stocks
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking, in view of the meat shortage, to increase the number of sheep in Scotland.
    Mr. Woodburn: Encouragement is given to farmers in Scotland to improve and increase their breeding sheep stocks by means of the hill sheep subsidy, by increased prices for fat sheep and for wool, by the provision of rams to crofting townships and by offering grants of half the cost of carrying out schemes for the improvement of hill sheep farms under the Hill Farming Act. Since June, 1947, after the heavy losses of the storms, the number of sheep in Scotland has increased by over 705,000.
    Mi. Hughes: What steps is the Minister taking to stock the deer forests with sheep?
    Mr. Woodburn: Steps have been taken during and since the war to put as many sheep in deer forests as the deer forests can carry, and that policy is being pursued steadily.
    Mr. Snadden: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, in view of the present serious meat position, that the time is
    10
    ripe for a comprehensive review of the maximum use of all our marginal hill and deer forest lands?
    Mr. Woodburn: I am quite sure that farmers in the Highlands would be very surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman ask that question, because they have been pressed for the last five years and have been doing their maximum.
    Mr. MacLeod: While the increase of food production is welcomed, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is not done at the expense of the human population in the Highlands?
    Mr. Woodburn: One of the limiting factors in the Highlands is that we cannot have cattle without human beings to look after them, and we must re-populate the Highlands with human beings before we can re-populate them with cattle.

    School Classes
    Mr. William Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of oversize classes in primary, first three years secondary and fourth year and beyond departments of Scottish schools at March, 1949; and what additional accommodation in each department will be available by September, 1949.
    Mr. Woodburn: At December, 1948, there were 238 oversize classes in primary departments, 680 in the first three years of secondary departments, and 132 in the fourth and subsequent years. It is expected that about 250 primary and fully 300 secondary rooms under construction now will be available by September, 1949.

    Building Apprentices (Instruction)
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the education authorities presently providing day instruction facilities for building apprentices; how many apprentices are taking advantage of the facilities; and what is the estimated cost of these facilities to the Treasury for the current year.
    Mr. Woodburn: Day instruction for a total of 1,048 building apprentices is provided by the Education Authorities of Dundee, Glasgow, Fife, Lanark and Stirling. Additional facilities will be provided by Edinburgh Education

    11
    Authority next month, and it is hoped that provision will be made in Aberdeen next session. It is estimated that the grant from the Education (Scotland) Fund towards the cost of these facilities during the current year will amount to about £12,000.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that he is getting the full co-operation of the building employers in this matter?
    Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir, I am not satisfied. In many cases the building employers do not seem to appreciate the value of this work, and I think that they might do a little more to co-operate.

    Prison Officers, Carstairs
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the serious delay which has occurred in dealing with representations from the Prison Officers' Association concerning the position of the staffs employed at Carstairs State Institution, including representations regarding official recognition and negotiating machinery; and whether he will take steps to expedite an immediate settlement of these outstanding matters.
    Mr. Woodburn: Agreement has been reached over a large part of the field and steps are being taken to expedite a settlement on the matters still outstanding.

    Television
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to set up a television station in Scotland.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): My right hon. Friend regrets there is nothing he can acid to the answer which he gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) on 6th April.
    Colonel Hutchison: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the weight of population in the central belt in Scotland justifies some plan being made for some such station?
    Mr. Hobson: It is a question of making manpower and raw materials available.

  COUNCIL FOR WALES (MEMBERSHIP)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Prime Minister whether he will now announce the name of the chairman and members of the Advisory Council for Wales; and when and where its first meeting will be held.
  Mr. Coveasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to announce the names of the chairman and members of the National Council for Wales.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am circulating the complete list of 27 members of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In accordance with the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Lord President of the Council on 24th November, the 12 local authority members have been chosen from a panel of persons nominated by Welsh local authorities; and there are also nominees from the Joint Education Committee, the University of Wales, the National Eisteddfod Council, and the Welsh Tourists and Holidays Board. As representatives of the management side of Welsh industry and agriculture, I have appointed Mr. G. E. Aeron-Thomas, Mr. G. B. Bailey, Mr. E. Gibby, and Mr. W. Clayton Russon; and to represent the workers' side, Councillor Huw T. Edwards, Mr. E. H. Hickery, Mr. Edward Jones, and Mr. R. Ll. Jones. To fill the three remaining places I have appointed Mr. A. R. Davies, Sir Ifan ab Owen Edwards, and Mrs. Jennie Jenkins. Except in the case of the local authority representatives, the appointments will be for three years. In order to increase the opportunity for individual local authorities to have a representative on the Council, a third of the local authority members will retire each year under arrangements to be settled with the advice of the Council.
  I am also glad to be able to tell the House that Mr. Huw Edwards has accepted my invitation to be Chairman of the Council for its first year; subsequent appointments will be made by the Council itself, subject to the proviso that the chairmanship shall alternate between North and South Wales. It will be for the Chairman to make the arrangements for the first Meeting.
  Mr. Freeman: While thanking the Prime Minister for the assistance the Government has at last given to Wales, may I ask whether the Council will be able to meet when and where it likes?
  The Prime Minister: I presume so. I have stated that this is a matter for the Chairman to make the arrangements for the first meeting and, presumably, for subsequent meetings.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House that the proceedings of this Council will be made available to the public, and will not be secret and confidential?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that question without notice.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will the Prime Minister issue a directive to see that the proceedings of the Council will be available to the public?
  The Prime Minister: I think the general view is that this should not be public, but that Press announcements should be made.
  Following is the list:
  COUNCIL FOR WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE
  Chairman

  Councillor Huw T. Edwards (one of the representatives of Industrial and Agricultural Workers).

  Nominated by the Prime Minister

  Mr. A. R. Davies.

  Sir Ifan ab Owen Edwards.

  Mrs. Jennie Jenkins.

  Representatives of Local Authorities

  Alderman R. D. Briercliffe, J.P.

  Councillor G. F. Hamer, C.B.E., J.P.

  Alderman A. E. Harries.

  Councillor Llewellyn Heycock.

  Alderman W. D. Hughes, J.P.

  Councillor Lewis Lewis.

  Councillor Sidney Mitchell, J.P.

  Councillor Penry Morris.

  Councillor David Owen, M.B.E., J.P

  Councillor O. Gwyrfai Owen.

  Alderman J. J. Panes, O.B.E.

  Alderman George Williams, C.B.E.

  Representatives of Industry and Agriculture (Management)

  Mr. G. E. Aeron-Thomas, O.B.E., D.L., J.P.

  Mr. G. B. Bailey.

  Mr. E. Gibby.

  Mr. W. Clayton Russon, M.B.E.

  Representatives of Industry and Agriculture (Workers')

  Mr. E. H. Hickery.

  Mr. Edward Jones, J.P.

  Mr. R. LI. Jones, M.B.E.

  In addition to the Chairman.

  Education

  Alderman Joseph Jones, J.P., M.A. (nominated by Joint Education Committee).

  Professor Henry Lewis, M.A., D.Lit. (nominated by University of Wales).

  Representative of National Eisteddfod Council

  Alderman W. Emyr Williams, LL.B.

  Representative of Tourist and Holidays Board

  Mr. William Jones, C.B.E.

  COLOURED PEOPLE (DISCRIMINATION)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the Dominions Prime Ministers during their visit to this country the question of discrimination against coloured people.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that racial discrimination has become so bad in South Africa—
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. It has been constantly laid down by your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, that no question may be asked reflecting on the policy of the Government of one of His Majesty's Dominions. May I call attention to the fact that the hon. Member is so doing by a supplementary question?
  Mr. Scollan: Is it not the case that any question covering British subjects abroad can be asked in this House?
  Mr. Speaker: A self-governing Dominion is a Dominion responsible to itself, and not to this House. The noble Lord is correct. One could not criticise the Government of a self-governing Dominion.
  Mr. HughesMay I be allowed to continue my question?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I was wondering whether you would assist in the interpretation of that Ruling, Mr. Speaker? Does it mean that it would not be proper to put down a Question to the Prime Minister, or other appropriate Minister, about the protection of the rights of British subjects in British Dominions?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a purely hypothetical question and I would like to see it put down in writing at the Table before Riving an answer to it.
  Mr. John Lewis: While appreciating the Prime Minister's difficulty in answering the Question on the Order Paper, might I ask if he will take the opportunity, if it arises, of making it known that the people of this country regard racial prejudice of any kind as abhorrent?
  Mr. Gallacher: There is a young clergyman in this country who has been imprisoned in South Africa because of association with coloured people; is it in Order to ask the Prime Minister to raise that matter at the Dominion Conference?
  Mr. Speaker: There is no responsibility on the Prime Minister for that and Questions must be devoted to matters for which Ministers are responsible.
  Mr. S. Silverman: I understand that the Question on the Order paper addressed to the Prime Minister is a question about what he would discuss with Dominion Prime Ministers while they are in London and when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) got an answer which he did not like, he put a supplementary question which was directed to elucidating the reasons why the answer was not as my hon. Friend would have liked it.
  Mr. Speaker: I did not think the supplementary question was directed in that way.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Tax Payment (Legal Decision)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now come to any conclusion on the observations of Mr. Justice Vaisey on 16th March in Sebel Products Limited v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise; and if he will indicate his future policy with regard to the retention by the Crown of tax paid under mistake of law.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) on Tuesday, 12th April.
    Sir J. Mellor: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been considering
    16
    the matter for six weeks, is it not time he came to a conclusion on a matter of common honesty?
    Sir S. Cripps: Not yet.

    Income Tax Arrears
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much Income Tax of two or more years duration still remains unpaid; how many individuals or firms are concerned; between what amounts do the sums range; and why this failure to collect Income Tax is allowed, in view of the fact that it means higher taxation for those who do pay.
    Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member will find the latest available information in the Inland Revenue Appropriation Accounts for the accounting year 1947–48 which were published recently. I cannot accept the implication in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question. As pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in paragraph 10 of his Report, the arrears due for collection show a marked fall between 1946 and 1947. The amount of tax due which is finally written off as irrecoverable is very small: in the year 1947, the total amount of Income Tax and other Inland Revenue duties remitted or written off as irrecoverable was only £1,500,000.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the Chancellor aware that concern is caused when publicity is given to the fact that certain individuals have been able to escape liability in this way? Is his Department able to take stronger measures to try to prevent these arrears accruing?
    Sir S. Cripps: We take all the steps possible to prevent arrears accruing, but it is for the taxpayer to prevent the arrears accruing.

    Tourist Traffic, Tangier (Currency)
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the benefits which would accrue to our hard currency trade if British tourists were able to visit Tangier; and if he will extend the basic currency facilities to that territory.
    Sir S. Cripps: No advantage to our hard currency trade would result from increased sterling earnings by Tangier;

    17
    on the other hand, there would be disadvantages in the accumulation of sterling on this free currency market. I do not, therefore, propose to extend facilities for tourist travel to Tangier.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the fact that the Chancellor's view entirely differs from mine, will he allow me to discuss the matter with him?
    Sir S. Cripps: I have examined the matter to see what view is the correct one, and I have stated it.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the Chancellor be careful to distinguish between tourists and those who go there to test the hardness of the currency?

    European Economic Co-operation
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conversations have taken place between Mr. Tasca of the Economic Co-operation Administration and the Organisation of European Economic Co-operation and His Majesty's Government, respectively.
    Sir S. Cripps: So far as I am aware, none at all.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can that answer be assumed to mean that Mr. Tasca has come over to discuss the devaluation of European currencies and that there is no question of sterling being devalued?
    Sir S. Cripps: There is no question of sterling being devalued, but I do not know what that has to do with Mr. Tasca.

    Anglo-Portuguese Trade
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any further statement to make on the date by which Anglo-Portuguese trade will be fully restored.
    Sir S. Cripps: As already announced in the Press, we have now made satisfactory arrangements with the Portuguese Government covering trade and payments during 1949, and the Portuguese authorities have resumed the grant of licences for United Kingdom goods. In view of internal measures taken by Portugal to improve her economic situation, Portugal could not agree to import United Kingdom goods in 1949 as freely
    18
    as last year when our exports reached an exceptionally high level; imports of United Kingdom goods will now be regulated in accordance with quotas covering broad categories of goods.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say by how much the overall figure of Anglo-Portuguese trade will he reduced by this modification?
    Sir S. Cripps: It is difficult to say, but it is anticipated that it will be somewhere around £4 million, which means that it will be very much bigger than in 1947.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Chancellor further say what steps he is taking to see that our favourable balance with Portugal is not offset by further sterling purchases?
    Sir S. Cripps: I have taken no steps to try to defeat the objects of the sterling area.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Has not the Chancellor taken steps to see that in purchases in the sterling area Portugal is not to be paid by us in gold?
    Sir S. Cripps: We have taken every step to see that we do not pay gold to Portugal.

    Sterling Balances
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total of unfunded sterling balances at the latest convenient date.
    Sir S. Cripps: The total of sterling liabilities to residents outside the United Kingdom, excluding liabilities blocked by agreement, amounted at the end of 1948 to about £1,750 million.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: What steps is the Chancellor taking to see that these sums are blocked so that they cannot seep into the sterling area and become available to purchase unrequited exports?
    Sir S. Cripps: We do not wish to block all the sterling balances; otherwise all the trade of this country would be stifled.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: What steps is the Chancellor taking to see that these sums are not used for the purchase of unrequited exports from this country?
    Sir S. Cripps: We allow the expenditure of these sums upon whatever goods the owners of the sums can purchase in these markets. They are not blocked liabilities; these are the unblocked liabilities.

    Anglo-American Council on Productivity
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make available to the House the Report of the Second Session of the Anglo-American Council on Productivity recently concluded in the United States of America.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The Report in its printed form should be ready on Thursday, and I am arranging to have a copy placed in the Library.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the report of the meetings of this Council go to show that it is a great pity that such a council were not instituted very many years ago?
    Sir S. Cripps: I entirely agree. I think that they are showing most useful results.

    Petrol Tax (Tractors)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to avoiding penalising, by way of tax, farmers who have petrol-burning tractors, he will now consider removing the tax from agricultural petrol, or, alternatively, giving a rebate of 6d. per gallon on petrol used for agricultural purposes.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid the hon. Member's suggestions are not practicable.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the Chancellor realise that, generally speaking, the petrol-burning tractor is the most efficient, and why do the Government continue to handicap the increased production of food at home by putting a tax on the use of petrol for food and other agricultural purposes? Surely there is some sense somewhere?
    Sir S. Cripps: I should not like to become a partisan between the merits of the Diesel and the petrol engine.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will the Chancellor see me afterwards? I have a great deal to tell him.

    Income and Expenditure
    Mr. Piratinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make
    20
    a statement explaining the differences in Table 8 of Command Paper No. 7649 and Table 5 of Command Paper No. 7371, National Income and Expenditure of the United Kingdom, 1948 and 1947, respectively, which, among other things, gives the 1947 wages before Income Tax as 42 per cent. and 40 per cent., respectively, and the profits, interest and rent as 33 per cent. and 41 per cent., respectively.
    Sir S. Cripps: The explanation lies in the titles of the two tables. Table 5 of Command Paper No. 7371 gives the allocation of private income from work and property: Table 8 of Command Paper No. 7649 deals with personal income only. The earlier table therefore includes (in interest, profits and rent) that part of the national income which is neither paid out to persons nor accrues to public authorities as net income from property. A minor cause of difference between the percentages is the inclusion of the pay of the Armed Forces in Table 8 of Command Paper No. 7649.
    Mr. Piratin: While I appreciate that reply, may I ask the Chancellor whether in this year's White Paper there is a table comparable with that of last year, which shows the figures?
    Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper, I will try to answer it.

    Playing Fields
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the great need for more playing fields in the industrial towns and cities and the great work done by the National Playing Fields Association in helping to buy and equip playing fields if he will now grant this association the sum of money promised to them by his predecessor.
    Sir S. Cripps: The Minister of Education is empowered by statute to assist the purchase and equipment of playing-fields, and Parliament has provided funds which have enabled him to make considerable use of his powers. A direct Treasury grant for this purpose would not, therefore, be appropriate, and my predecessor was misunderstood if he was thought to be promising such a grant when he referred to the provision made for this purpose in the annual Estimates.

    Inland Revenue Office, Llandudno
    Mr. Selwyn Lloydasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present position with regard to the move of the offices of the Charity and Foreign Section of the Chief Inspector's (Claims) Branch of the Inland Revenue from Llandudno to Liverpool.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): A suitable building has now been found in Liverpool and it is hoped that it will be ready for occupation in the autumn.

  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION (LECTURERS)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Central Office of Information, in selecting applicants to lecture on their behalf, inquire of them their political views; and whether these are taken into consideration.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. But applicants are asked whether they take an active part in party politics and, if so, they are not employed as lecturers.
  Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say whether any political parties are invited to submit lists of lecturers?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: No. not as such.
  Mr. Scollan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost invariably the person who has no politics is a Tory?
  Mr. Thurtle: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the same scrutiny is made of the political opinions of journalists who are sent abroad to edit British papers?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have made it quite clear in my original answer that the test is "an active part in party politics."

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Whisky (Exports to Tangier)
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the President of the Board of Trade how much whisky was exported from Great Britain to Tangier in 1948.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): I regret that this information is not available as exports to Tangier are not separately distinguished in the trade returns.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that despite the fact that Tangier is prepared to buy large quantities of whisky for dollars he has no idea of how much dollar currency we can earn in this way?
    Mr. Edwards: The point is that the returns for Tangier are included with those for Morocco. The figures as a whole are 3,609 proof gallons valued at £8,092. I have not separate figures for Tangier.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that whisky can be sold in Tangier for dollars, which so far as I know does not apply to Morocco? Would it not be worth while for this country to earn dollars in that way?
    Mr. Edwards: The Question I was asked was not concerned with the earning of dollars but with actual export figures, which I am unable to give for the reasons I have stated.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into the matter, with special reference to the dollar earning possibilities?
    Mr. Edwards

    Patents (Swan Committee)
    Mr. Snaddenasked the President of the Board of Trade how many engineers or inventors served on the Swan Committee, upon whose report the Patents Bill was founded.
    Mr. J. Edwards: Five of the nine members of the Swan Committee were engineers or technologists. I have no information whether any of the members were inventors in the sense of making inventions for which patents were granted.

    Overalls, Cheltenham
    Mr. Lipsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that painters and decorators in the Cheltenham area are unable to obtain the overalls they need; and if he will take steps to increase the supply.
    Mr. J. Edwards: There is a general scarcity of these overalls due to difficulties in the supply of the cloth. All practicable steps are being taken to increase production of this cloth, but the needs of the export drive, especially to the dollar areas, must take precedence.
    Mr. Lipson: Cannot more regard be had for the needs of workers in this country, and a little more allowed to the home market, as this is causing great hardship and inconvenience?
    Mr. Edwards: I appreciate that, and we are doing what we can to try to alleviate the position.

    Barrier, Norfolk Broads (Timber)
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a barrier of timber and steel was erected across Black Horse Dyke, leading from the River Bure to Hoveton Little Broad, on the Norfolk Broads, between 16th February and 11th March, 1949, particulars of which have been sent to him; how much timber was used in this operation; what kind of timber was used; where it was obtained; and whether a licence was issued for the use of this timber for the purpose of the erection of this barrier.
    Mr. J. Edwards: No timber licence has been issued in connection with the operation referred to; but I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend when they are completed.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we in Norfolk would like to have an opportunity of dealing with the Broads ourselves without quite so much assistance from Lowestoft?
    Mr. Edwards: That is an entirely different matter.

    Imported Wool (Price)
    Mr. Piratinasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average price of wool per pound imported into the country.
    Mr. J. Edwards: The average value of raw sheeps' and lambs' wool imported into the United Kingdom during the month of March, 1949, as calculated, from the Official Trade and Navigation Accounts for that month, was 38.3 pence per lb.
    Mr. Piratin: Then can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why, in view of the figure of 3s. 2d. per lb., the price of the raw material in a suit is between 40s. and 45s. per lb., which amounts to about £15? Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain the difference between those figures?
    Mr. Edwards: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that the average price which I have given him covers wool in all kinds of conditions. It is not easy to deduce, from the price I have given him, any straight argument as to the price of wool in the finished suit.

  TELEPHONE APPARATUS (EXPORTS)
  Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of Supply what value of telephone exchange equipment was exported to hard and soft currency countries, respectively, in 1948; and what proportion of our total production did this represent.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): Exports of telephone exchange equipment are not recorded separately. The figures for telephone apparatus of all kinds are: hard currency markets, £1,130,000; sterling area, £7,250,000; other countries, £3,630,000. These exports represent slightly more than half the total United Kingdom production in 1948.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the comparatively trivial amount of benefit which is to be gained from these exports will not the hon. Gentleman divert supplies to the home market, which is urgently in need of them?
  Mr. Strauss: I do not agree that these amounts are trivial. Together they amount to about £12 million, which is substantial, but in view of the increased production of telephone apparatus there will be more for the home market this year.
  Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Is the Minister aware that advertisements in telephone kiosks suggest to the public that 66 per cent of this equipment is being exported?
  Mr. Strauss: No, I am not aware of that. That is a question which should

  25
  be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. It depends on what type of equipment is being considered.
  Sir G. Fox: Surely the public should not be misguided like this. They wonder why they cannot get this equipment and they are told it is for export; 66 per cent., when the Minister's figures are not as much as that.

ATTACKS ON H.M. SHIPS. CHINA
Churchill(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will make a statement about the situation on the Yangtse River, and the circumstances in which His Majesty's ships were attacked and British sailors killed and wounded.
Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In order to obtain your guidance for future occasions, may I draw your attention to the fact that there is a Question on the Order Paper today, No. 25, which, I understand, was withdrawn this morning. It must have been put down two days ago. Does not the fact that it is on the Order Paper preclude a Private Notice Question?
Mr. Speaker: Actually there was an error made. I understood that the Question was withdrawn earlier. It is very difficult on the first day after the Adjournment—it is all very well when hon. Members are here—to get hold of hon. Members, when they are miles away, to ask them to withdraw. So I have used my discretion. If I have broken the practice, I have broken it. I thought it was only right that the Leader of the Opposition should ask an important Question of this kind.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am afraid that this statement will necessarily be a long one. The House will wish to have a full account of the circumstances in which His Majesty's ships were fired upon in the Yangtse River with grievous casualties and damage.
I will first explain what our position is with regard to the civil war in China. It has been repeatedly stated in this House that our policy has been governed by the Moscow Declaration of December, 1945,
26
in which the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union declared a policy of non-intervention in China's internal affairs. In view of the considerable British interests in China and of the presence of large British communities, His Majesty's Government decided some months ago that His Majesty's Ambassador and His Majesty's Consular Officers in China should remain at their posts and this was announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 9th December. We were not alone in the decision to remain at Nanking. Other Powers represented there, with the exception of the Soviet Union, reached the same decision, and there has since been full consultation between the members of the Diplomatic Corps at Nanking.
In the disturbed conditions which have prevailed in recent months, warships of various Powers have been at Shanghai and Nanking so that in the event of a breakdown of law and order as the result of hostilities they would he able to assist in the evacuation of their nationals. When the Chinese Government decided to move to Canton, it is true that a warning was issued about warships in the Yangtse. Nevertheless it is a fact that since that time the movements of our warships in the Yangtse have taken place with the full knowledge and consent of the National Government of China. I want to make the point therefore that when the incident took place to which I am about to refer, H.M.S. "Amethyst" was proceeding on her lawful occasions and that there was no other properly constituted authority to whom His Majesty's Government were under an obligation to notify her movements even had they been in a position to do so.
The House will wish to know whether any steps were taken by our authorities in China to make contact with the Communist authorities. Some time has lapsed since Communist forces overran Mukden, Peking and Tientsin where we have Consular posts. His Majesty's Consular Officers at these posts have been endeavouring for some time past to reach day-to-day working arrangements with the local authorities. Their approaches have, however, been rejected on every occasion without any reason being given for such a rejection. The same policy was followed in rejecting a letter from His Majesty's Consul in Peking about the

27
"Amethyst" when the incident had occurred.
In conformity with the decision to remain at Nanking, His Majesty's ships had been relieving one another at that port at regular intervals for some months past. On this occasion the object of the passage of H.M.S. "Amethyst" was to relieve H.M.S. "Consort" at Nanking. Opposing Chinese forces had been massed along the banks of the Yangtse for a considerable time and there were repeated rumours for some weeks that the Communists were about to cross the river. H.M.S. "Consort" was already due for relief, but this relief was postponed in view of a Communist ultimatum which was due to expire on 12th April and which might have been followed by the crossing of the Yangtse. On 12th April His Majesty's Ambassador learned that the ultimatum had been extended to 15th April. The relief had therefore still to be postponed. Only on 18th April was it learned that the final expiry of the ultimatum might lead to the crossing of the Yangtse by Communist forces on 21st April.
The necessity for relieving H.M.S. "Consort" as early as possible remained. She was running short of supplies after a long stay at Nanking and in any case a frigate was considered more suitable than a destroyer to be stationed at that port. The Flag Officer therefore decided, with the agreement of His Majesty's Ambassador, that the passage should be timed to allow "Amethyst" to reach Nanking a clear twenty-four hours before the expiry of the latest Communist ultimatum. Had there been no incident, "Amethyst" should have reached Nanking on 20th April. It was in the light of these known facts that the decision was made for "Amethyst" to sail and this decision was in my opinion correct.
Thus early on Tuesday, 19th April, the frigate H.M.S. "Amethyst" (Lieut.-Commander Skinner) sailed from Shanghai for Nanking, wearing the White Ensign and the Union Jack and with the Union Jack painted on her hull. When "Amethyst" had reached a point on the Yangtse River some 60 miles from Nanking, at about nine o'clock in the morning on the 20th, Chinese time, she came under heavy fire from batteries on
28
the north bank, suffered considerable damage and casualties and eventually grounded on Rose Island. After this the Captain decided to land about sixty of her crew, including her wounded, who got ashore by swimming or in sampans, being shelled and machine-gunned as they did so; we know that a large proportion have, with Chinese help, arrived at Shanghai.
Vice-Admiral Madden, the Flag Officer, second in command, Far Eastern Station, ordered the destroyer H.M.S. "Consort" (Commander Robertson) from Nanking to go to "Amethyst's" assistance, and the frigate H.M.S. "Black Swan" (Captain Jay) from Shanghai to Kiang Yin, 40 miles down river from the "Amethyst." "Consort" reached "Amethyst" at about three in the afternoon and was immediately heavily engaged. She found the fire too hot to approach "Amethyst" and therefore passed her at speed down river. She turned two miles below and again closed "Amethyst" to take her in tow. But she again came under such heavy fire that she was obliged to abandon the attempt, although she answered the shore batteries with her full armament and signalled that she had silenced most of the opposition. Half an hour later her signals ceased, though in fact she was making a second attempt to take "Amethyst" in tow, having turned downstream again. This attempt also failed and she sustained further damage and casualties during which her steering was affected. She therefore had to continue downstream out of the firing area.
Meanwhile, the cruiser H.M.S. "London" (Captain Cazalet), wearing the flag of Flag Officer second in command was also proceeding up the Yangtse at best speed. The three ships "London," "Black Swan," and "Consort" met at Kiang Yin at about eight that evening. It was found that "Consort" was extensively damaged; she was ordered to proceed to Shanghai to land her dead and wounded and effect repairs.
At about two o'clock in the morning of the 21st the "Amethyst" succeeded in refloating herself by her own efforts and anchored two miles above Rose Island. She could go no further as her chart was destroyed. Her hull was holed in several places, her Captain severely wounded, her First Lieutenant wounded,

29
and her doctor killed. There were only four unwounded officers left, and one telegraphist to carry out all wireless communications. Later the same morning the "London" and the "Black Swan" endeavoured to close the "Amethyst," but met with heavy fire causing some casualties. The fire was of course returned, but the Flag Officer then decided that it would not be possible to bring the damaged "Amethyst" down river without further serious loss of life in all ships; he therefore ordered the "London" and "Black Swan" to return to Kiang Yin.
At Kiang Yin they were fired upon by batteries, and suffered considerable casualties and damage. Both ships afterwards proceeded to Shanghai to land their dead and wounded and to effect repairs. That afternoon a naval and a R.A.F. doctor with medical supplies and charts were flown by a Sunderland aircraft of the Royal Air Force to the "Amethyst." Both the aircraft and the "Amethyst" were fired upon. The ship was hit, but the Sunderland managed to transfer the R.A.F. doctor and some medical supplies before being forced to take off. The "Amethyst" then took shelter in a creek.
During the night of the 21st-22nd "Amethyst" succeeded in evacuating a further batch of her wounded to a nearby town. After doing so, she moved ten miles up river under cover of darkness, though under rifle fire from the banks, and again anchored; she then completed the landing of all her more seriously wounded, including her Captain. I am sorry to say that this very gallant officer, who had insisted on remaining with his ship up to this time, died of his wounds soon after. There remained on board three Royal Navy officers, one Royal Air Force doctor, 52 ratings and eight Chinese. At about this time Lieutenant-Commander Kerans, the Assistant Naval Attaché at Nanking, reached the ship and assumed command.
Another courageous effort to reach "Amethyst" was made by the R.A.F. in a Sunderland on the afternoon of the 22nd, but the aircraft was driven off by artillery fire without succeeding in making contact. The "Amethyst" then moved a further four miles up river. She was in close touch with the Flag Officer, and after a number of courses had been
30
considered, it was decided that she should remain where she was.
Perhaps I may at this point anticipate two questions which may possibly be asked. First, how was it that H.M. ships suffered such extensive damage and casualties, and second, why they were not able to silence the opposing batteries and fight their way through. In answer to the first, I would only say that warships are not designed to operate in rivers against massed artillery and infantry sheltered by reeds and mudbanks. The Communist forces appear to have been concentrated in considerable strength and are reported as being lavishly equipped with howitzers, medium artillery and field guns. The above facts also provide much of the answer to the second question, only I would add this. The Flag Officer's policy throughout was designed only to rescue H.M.S. "Amethyst" and to avoid unnecessary casualties. There was no question of a punitive expedition and H.M. ships fired only to silence the forces firing against them.
I will at this point briefly summarise the losses and damage which resulted.

H.M.S. "London"; 13 killed. 15 wounded.

H.M.S. "Consort"; 10 killed 4 seriously wounded.

H.M.S. "Amethyst"; 19 killed. 27 wounded.

H.M.S. "Black Swan"; 7 wounded.

In addition, 12 ratings are still missing. Of the damage to the ships, the "London" suffered the most severely, having been holed repeatedly in her hull and upper works. The damage to the "Consort" and the "Black Swan" was less serious. "London" and the "Black Swan" have already completed their emergency repairs. The "Amethyst" suffered severe damage but was repaired by the efforts of her own crew so as to be capable of 17 knots.
When H.M.S. "Amethyst" was fired upon by Communist forces H.M. Ambassador instructed H.M. Consular Officer in charge at Peking to communicate to the highest competent Chinese Communist authority by whatever means possible a message informing them of this and seeking the issue of immediate instructions by them to their military commanders along the Yangtse to desist from such firing. A subsequent message emphasised the urgent

31
need of medical attention of the casualties and reiterated the request for instructions to prevent further firing upon these ships of the Royal Navy engaged in peaceful and humanitarian tasks. The local Communist authorities, however, refused to accept the Consul's letters.
At this time Mr. Edward Youde, a third Secretary in His Majesty's Foreign Service who has a good knowledge of Chinese, volunteered to try and contact the Communist forces north of Pukou in the hope of reaching some commanding officer with sufficient authority to stop the firing. H.M. Ambassador agreed to this attempt and Mr. Youde passed through the Nationalist lines on the night of 21st April. Thanks to his courage and determination Mr. Youde succeeded in reaching the forward headquarters of the People's Liberation Army in the Pukou area on 23rd April. He described the situation as he knew it when he left Nanking on 21st April and pointed out to them the peaceful and humanitarian nature of the mission of H.M.S. "Amethyst" and requested that she be allowed to proceed to Nanking or Shanghai without further molestation. Their headquarters took the line that clearance had not been obtained from the People's Liberation Army and that she had entered the war area. They also complained of heavy casualties incurred by their troops as a result of fire from H.M. ships. They refused to admit justification of self-defence. After consulting higher authority the headquarters stated that in the circumstances they would be prepared to allow the ship to proceed to Nanking but only on condition that she should assist the People's Liberation Army to cross the Yangtse. Such a condition was obviously unacceptable.
My attention has been drawn to a communiqué broadcast by the Communists which said that on the date in question warships on the Yangtse opened fire to prevent its crossing by Communist forces. It further stated that it was not until the following day that they learned that these ships were not all Chinese but that four British ships were among them. The Communists state that their forces suffered 252 casualties as a result of this firing and claim that His Majesty's Government have directly participated in the Chinese civil war by firing
32
on Communist positions. These claims are, of course, so far as they relate to His Majesty's Government or the Royal Navy, as fantastic as they are unfounded.
If there was any initial misunderstanding as to the nationality of H.M.S. "Amethyst" this would have been speedily resolved had the authorities in Peking acted on H.M. Ambassador's message. Moreover, had the Communist authorities objected in the past to the movement of British ships on the Yangtse it was always open to them to raise these through our consular authorities in North China. It is the fact that for reasons best known to themselves the Communists have failed to notify any foreign authority present in areas which they have occupied of the channels through which contact can be maintained and that they have rejected all communications made to them. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government can only reserve their position.
The House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of all those who have been killed or wounded in this action and in expressing admiration of the courage of all those who took part in it. Five names deserve special tribute. Lieut.-Commander Skinner, R.N., the Captain of the "Amethyst," behaved with the utmost gallantry till he succumbed to his wounds. The First Lieutenant, Lieut. J. C. Weston, refused to leave the "Amethyst" although dangerously wounded until relieved in command by Lieut.-Commander Kerans fifty-six hours later. Telegraphist J. L. French showed superlative devotion to duty. He was the only telegraphist left in the "Amethyst" after the early hours of 21st April; and from then onwards his efforts kept the ship in almost continuous communication with Shanghai. The name should also be mentioned of Flight-Lieut. K. H. Letford, D.S.O., D.F.C., who landed a Sunderland aircraft under fire to convey the naval and R.A.F. doctors to "Amethyst." The fifth name is that of Mr. Youde, whose one-man mission through the Communist armies I have already described.
Without a doubt many other cases of bravery and devotion will be revealed when all the facts are known. But we already have ample evidence that the conduct of the whole ship's company of H.M.S. "Amethyst" was beyond all

33
praise, though a considerable proportion were young sailors under tire for the first time. We have had reports of seamen and marines remaining at their tasks for up to 24 hours though bady wounded, and of men declining to have their wounds treated until cases they considered more urgent had been dealt with. I have heard too that in H.M.S. "London" and "Black Swan," when there was a possibility of volunteers being flown to "Amethyst," there was almost acrimonious rivalry for selection—as they put it "to go back for more."
I should mention that the United States naval authorities at Shanghai placed their resources unstintingly at our disposal, and the kindness and help of the British communities at Shanghai have been beyond all praise. Finally, the Chinese Nationalist forces in the Chinkiang area were most helpful in providing medical aid and stores which they could ill afford. The House will join with me in expressing our gratitude to all of these.
I should like, in concluding this statement, to pay a tribute to the British communities in China who have shown such steadfast behaviour in the difficult conditions in which they find themselves and whose decision to remain in China in spite of the uncertainties created by the civil war is in accordance with the best British tradition.
The House is now in full possession of the facts known to His Majesty's Government, and we shall of course continue to keep the House informed of developments as they occur. It will be realised that the situation is at present very fluid, but if, at a later stage, there is a general desire for a Debate on this matter, I am sure that this can be considered through the usual channels.
Mr. Churchill: May I be allowed to say that we all join with the Prime Minister in the expression of sympathy which he has made towards the relatives of those who were killed and. wounded, and also in the terms in which he has referred to the creditable behaviour of our officers and men in the difficult circumstances into which they were put?
May I ask whether he does not think that there is a certain resemblance—a coincidental resemblance—between this episode, where a vessel goes on a routine
34
cruise or journey up the river on the very eve of a battle—a civil war battle—and the sending out of aeroplanes some weeks ago in Egypt into a battle area within a few hours of a truce being declared? Does this not require very careful attention from the point of view of not putting our airmen and sailors into unnecessary dangers? Does it not require very careful attention from the Government and a further report on the details to the House? Is it not very unsatisfactory that the discharge of duties of routine should not be shown in all cases to have been done in full cognisance and comprehension of local circumstances, such as a large battle about to begin or a small quarrel about to be ended by a truce? May we have the Prime Minister's assurance that this matter will be the subject of a further statement from the Government to the House of Commons?
The other question I should like to ask at this moment—and I have no doubt that other hon. Members wish to ask questions on this subject—is this: How is it that at this time we have not got in Chinese waters one aircraft carrier, if not two, capable of affording protection to our nationals who may be increasingly involved in peril and misfortune, and capable of affording that protection in the only way which is understood by those who are attacking us, murdering us and insulting us, namely, by effective power of retaliation? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider this matter? As regards the question of a Debate, I shall take that up a little later.
The Prime Minister: We shall, of course, give the fullest possible details. With regard to the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, we have to consider the position, as I stated, of the British communities and representatives in this disturbed area. Over a long period there has been civil war. It was decided that it was wise to keep a vessel at Nanking. It is therefore a matter for decision by those on the spot as to when relief should take place. If it is put off all the time, because of a possible danger—and it is very difficult when there are irregular forces on one side—we should never get that relief, and so I think a decision had to be come to. The right hon. Gentleman would notice that there was talk of an armistice, and the armistice expired but hostilities were not

35
opened. A period of waiting then ensued to consider the position. Then, when there was an ultimatum, it was decided to relieve this ship in time before the ultimatum expired. In our view, the commanding officer there on the spot exercised a right judgment.
Mr. Churchill: Whoever was responsible managed to send that ship up the river almost exactly at zero hour.
The Prime Minister: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman could not have followed what I said, because it was pointed out that the voyage would have been completed 24 hours before zero hour. That is the reply to that. With regard to the allocation of ships and the rest, I do not think I could make any further statement on that. It is a matter we could well debate.
Mr. Churchill: Now that we have received this statement from the Government as to the facts, might we have an indication of what their reaction is upon them? We have suffered very serious injury and our prestige has been affected, except in regard to the valour of our men, and is this to be the end? What course do His Majesty's Government intend to pursue? I am not asking for a statement on this today, but it is obvious that a matter like this cannot be allowed to go away in default with a mere statement of the facts from the Prime Minister and with a passive acceptance of them by the House of Commons. Something more than that must be done. I am not pressing for an immediate statement, especially as one cannot say beforehand what it is necessary and right to do, but I should like to have an assurance from the Government that they will face this matter in a robust spirit and will make sure that the British flag is respected and that British lives are not flung away without Parliament pursuing the matter with vigour and attention.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, clearly recognised, as he said just now, that he could not expect a statement on that matter to be made today. I have said that I shall give the fullest information. The situation is still fluid, but certainly we shall make a statement on the position.
Mr. Churchill: And the aircraft carriers?
The Prime Minister: I have said I could not make a statement on that.
Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask the Prime Minister two questions? He has referred to the warning which had been given by the Nationalist Government before they moved to Canton. Can he tell us exactly when that warning was given, the nature of it and to whom it was given, and why it was that His Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that they should not heed that warning whatever happened? Secondly, may I ask him what steps are now being taken, or can be taken even at this late stage, for the further protection of His Majesty's subjects in this danger zone?
The Prime Minister: On the first point, I have not got the exact date by me, but it was a considerable time ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that the Chinese Government moved to Canton, that various changes in the Government took place, and that they subsequently came back to Nanking. For a considerable period of weeks, indeed I think months, there has been the passage of our ships and the ships of other nations up the Yangtse. I think one would be entitled to say that it was notified on every occasion and there was no objection. As a matter of fact, this practice has been allowed.
Mr. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman was disregarding that serious warning, in view of the steady advance made by the Communist armies, if no guarantee could be obtained from both sides before the ship was sent up, would it not have been better to withdraw our nationals and protect them at that particular moment?
The Prime Minister: The decision was announced in the House that we did not propose to withdraw our nationals, and that decision was taken in consultation with other nationals there. I think it is right that they should remain.
Colonel Dower: Is the Prime Minister aware that because this ship had previously gone up and down the Yangtse without being attacked, that does not in any way justify or excuse the fact that no steps were taken to have aircraft in the vicinity such as rocket firing planes which could, I understand, have been used even if an aircraft carrier was not available? The other question I wish to

37
ask the Prime Minister is that, in view of the fact that the "Amethyst" was taking supplies to our Embassy in Nanking as well as being engaged on relief purposes, surely, although we may agree that there was no means of knowing that the attack was going to take place at that moment, it must have been so imminent that steps could have been taken so that it would not have been necessary to renew the supplies or to relieve the personnel until, at any rate, the immediate danger of the invasion was over?
The Prime Minister: I think I tried to point out to the House that there had been this question of additional tension over a great period—that had been going on for a very long time with rumours of imminent crossings—and, therefore, they did as a matter of fact delay the ordinary relief because of the alleged termination of an armistice. Then there came the extension of the armistice and the opportunity was taken of that extension to effect the relief. I think that was right.
Mr. Harrison: Can the Prime Minister say what instructions had been given to our naval forces at present standing off Shanghai, in case Shanghai should fall?
Commander Noble: The Prime Minister said just now that we must avoid continuing to postpone routine sailings because of dangers that might go on for some time, but, surely, having put it off until what was really the crucial moment, when the crossing of the Yangtse was imminent, it would have been sensible to put it off a little longer until the matter was clearer and a safe guarantee obtained from each side?
The Prime Minister: I did not say that this was a routine matter on the kind of lines that one could either do it or not; there had to be the supplies and there had to be the relief, and the commander on the spot had to consider what was the time to do it. I have been through the dates very often, but this was the time selected as, otherwise, he might not have been able to reach them at all. He considered—and I. think he was right in thinking that, in view of the evidence available and actions of the past—that the relief could be effected during this pause.
Mr. Wyatt: Can the Prime Minister say whether the Government have any indication of the general attitude of the
38
Communist authorities in China towards the treaty rights of foreign Powers as a whole, because we ought to avoid further incidents of this kind?
The Prime Minister: We have had no answer from the Communist authorities.
Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: Can the Prime Minister say whether any steps are being taken to establish relations, not at a consular level or with local commanders, but with a Government which is controlling a very large part of China because, unless such steps are taken, what is there to prevent further incidents of this sort occurring?
The Prime Minister: As I have already stated, we have made and are making every effort to get in touch with the Communist authorities, but so far we have not been able to get a letter through.
Mr. Gammans: In view of the changed circumstances, do the Government still regard themselves as bound by the Moscow Declaration which means that, while we are doing our best to halt Communism in Europe, we are prepared to do nothing to check it in Asia? In view of the southward advance of the Communist forces, can the right hon. Gentleman give this House an assurance right here and now that Hong Kong is safe both from external aggression and fifth column activity from within?
The Prime Minister: I would prefer to have these detailed questions put on the Order Paper; they do not arise directly out of this incident.
Mr. Gallacher: The Prime Minister said that the Consulate at Nanking was short of supplies, but is he not aware that during the period of the truce both the road and rail were open and could have been used, had it been desired, for sending in supplies? In joining with the expression of sympathy with the friends of those who have been lost—[Interruption]—surely, I know what it is to suffer bereavement and I deplore this wanton sacrifice of British lives—may I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the authorities must have known that the Kuomintang authorities were not going to accept the terms of the truce, whether there will not be an independent inquiry into the responsibility for sending this

39
ship up the Yangtse at a time when it was known that hostilities were going to start?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is, of course, quite wrong. I have no information as to what the Kuomintang authorities were likely to do. I have already told the House that our information was that hostilities would not begin until the time given on the 21st. Had this firing not taken place before the ending of that armistice, there would have been no question of the ship being hit.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Prime Minister say, first, whether any other foreign Powers had warships in the vicinity of Nanking at the time of the incident, and, secondly, why there were not sufficient land-based aircraft at Hong Kong which could have given air cover to these warships at the time of the incident?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member quite understands that we were engaged on a peaceful mission. We were not engaged in staging a punitive war, and the vessels were going up and down the Yangtse on their lawful occasion.
Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. I have not had a reply to the second part of my question.
The Prime Minister: I have already pointed out that American ships based at Shanghai had been up and down the Yangtse quite recently.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Further to that point of Order. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would refer to the question of land-based aircraft at Hong Kong, and I have had no answer.
The Prime Minister: I answered that we were not engaged in warfare; we were engaged in a peaceful mission.
Mr. Dumpleton: With regard to the men remaining on the "Amethyst," is it not possible for the Admiralty to get greater information for their relatives here at home, many of whom are very much concerned? They have scanned the casualty lists to see if the names of their sons are included in them, but any further information which could be given would relieve their anxiety.
The Prime Minister: Every possible effort will be made to get the names, and the fullest possible information will be given as soon as the names come in.
Mr. Churchill: With regard to the question of a Debate on these matters, I feel that there are several matters on which the Government will wish to make a statement later. I have indicated them and, therefore, I do not wish to press for an adjournment of the House today, but we shall accept the offer of the Prime Minister to discuss, through the usual channels, a Debate upon this issue in the near future. Because it has many aspects, I should like to make it absolutely clear that whatever criticism we may male of what I may call the unfortunate handling of a difficult situation, which has led our people to lose their lives, that in no wise detracts from our resentment at the atrocious outrage of which we have been the victims, or from our determination to press the Government to take effective steps to make sure that we are treated with respect in the future.
The Prime Minister: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman, we are perfectly willing to have a Debate. We want to take every possible step to protect the communities in China—our British community; that is one of the points we have to bear in mind in dealing with this matter.
Brigadier Head: Does the Prime Minister consider that the main reason for our subsequent inability to extricate the "Amethyst" was largely due to the absence of any air support whatever? Is that not very unusual in modern conditions of warfare—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—of warfare in a very disturbed area? Can the Prime Minister assure us that immediate steps have been taken to ensure that air cover will in future be given?
The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to state in advance any steps with regard to the movement of any forces in this area. I am quite well aware that aircraft are used in warfare, but this was not a matter of warfare at all. There was no suggestion of making an attack anywhere at all. We were engaged in the peaceful process of bringing supplies up the river and it would have been quite unusual to have provided a bomber force or anything like that in conjunction with peaceful operations of that kind.
Mr. Eden: If it is considered not provocative—and I agree that it is not provocative—to send these ships up the Yangtse, how would it have been any more provocative to give them adequate air cover?
The Prime Minister: I naturally leave this matter to be one for the commanders on the spot to deal with. I am not sheltering myself and I take full responsibility, but I am now being asked to answer detailed questions about how this operation of keeping a warship at Nanking should be conducted and how those reliefs should be done. I am repeating the point that we were engaged in a peaceful occupation. The suggestion seems to be that we were staging something like an operation. We were doing nothing of the kind.
Mrs. Jean Mann: Would the Prime Minister tell the House what steps are being taken to protect those who are still on the "Amethyst"?
The Prime Minister: I cannot make any further statement except that all possible steps are being taken.
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Would the Prime Minister confirm or deny that an apology has been asked for from the Government by the Communist authorities; and, if it has, will he give this House an assurance that in no circumstances will he apologise for going to the aid of British lives?
The Prime Minister: I thought it was quite clear from my statement that we were unable to contact the Communist authorities. There could be no possible question of making any apology.
Mr. Logan: In view of the fact that Merseyside has had some casualties, I want to ask the Prime Minister what protection is to be afforded now to our British naval men there on the spot, so as to see that no further affront will take place on account of our having inadequate protection there to guard against it?
The Prime Minister: I have already stated—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford will agree—that whatever steps we are taking, we cannot make a public announcement of the exact steps that we are taking.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that until 1947 there were two aircraft carriers on the China station? Could the right hon. Gentleman say why, in the face of the obviously deteriorating situation in China, His Majesty's Government reduced rather than reinforced this squadron?
The Prime Minister: I certainly could not answer that without notice.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the fact that it was known that an ultimatum was about to expire and that a crossing of the Yangtse might then be contemplated, would it have been prudent or practicable to attempt to inform both sides before the operation was commenced of the nature of the operation and its peaceful purposes—the same sort of attempt as was made after the incident occurred?
The Prime Minister: I thought I had already made it clear to the House that we did every possible thing to contact the Communist forces and that we could not get any message through.
Mr. Silverman: I thought my right hon. Friend's statement referred to an attempt made subsequently. I was asking whether an attempt could not have been made before the operation.
The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend will study my statement he will see that that was an addition I made saying "afterwards"; we had already done it before.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: When he was asked why air cover was not provided, the Prime Minister stated that the voyage of the "Amethyst" was not an operation of war, but surely it was clear that some thing like an operation of war was involved in the subsequent movement of the ships in support of the "Amethyst." I rather think the country will like to know why air cover was not provided at that juncture.
Mr. Paget: Could the Prime Minister tell us how on earth air cover could have assisted in preventing the "Amethyst" from being attacked from guns in forts on the banks?
Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman has explained the absence of air cover by describing this as what he calls a peaceful operation. Will he assist the

43
House in this matter? After this unjustified attack on a British ship had been made and it was considered right to send other warships to the assistance of the "Amethyst," why were not aircraft ordered up then? Furthermore, as this matter must have been considered, who took the decision that aircraft should not be brought into operation?
The Prime Minister: Any decisions for action in this matter were taken by the men on the spot at the time. I have given full information to the House; I cannot give more information of what occurred than that which I have given. We simply have this information.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Will the Prime Minister indicate whether, before the "Amethyst" proceeded up the river. the commanding officer on the spot sought for and obtained instructions in relation to that movement from the headquarters of the Admiralty and the Government itself; whether the seeking of such advice was necessary or advisable; whether it was sought and what instructions, if any, were given?
The Prime Minister: This matter was a matter within the responsibiity of the local commander. He consulted with His Majesty's Ambassador, but there was no reference back here before action was taken.
Commander Galbraith: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether aircraft were actually available to the commander on the spot?
Mr. Scollan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will not be stampeded into an intervention in this civil war that might lead us into war?
Mr. Walter Fletcher: In view of the fact that the north bank of the Yangtse had been occupied for four weeks before this incident and that local rumour that it was to be crossed was apparent every day, and in view of the fact that this expedition had to take place to help in Nanking, will the Prime Minister say what steps were taken to see that it was carried out in the manner that provided the maximum safety, either by protection from aircraft or by sending more than one vessel at one time?
The Prime Minister: No one has yet pointed out exactly what the aircraft would have done in this matter.
Major Tufton Beamish: I will point it out—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: In any further Debate I am quite prepared to answer any questions. All I can say now is that this was a matter which was decided by the authorities on the spot. No suggestion or order was given from here that aircraft either should or should not be used. This was a matter in which, whatever operations were undertaken, were undertaken by those on the spot. In my view they took the right line in the decision they took.
Mr. Churchill: Are not the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister of Defence in close touch with the men on the spot? Ought they not to be following this situation and able to make—
Mr. Shurmer: What did you do at Narvik?
Mr. Churchill: What did the hon. Member say? Are those right hon. Gentlemen keeping in close touch, instead of leaving it to the men on the spot, and so being confronted with an unfortunate episode of this character?
The Prime Minister: I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not think it right that day-to-day meticulous orders should be given to local commanders to carry out. No commander would wish to have them.
Mr. Churchill: Would it not have been right for the Admiralty authorities and the Government, when' they had information that this ship was to proceed up the river, and when the Communists had been entrenched along, or in strong occupation of, the north bank for weeks before, and when an armistice was expiring in a few hours—would it not have been right for them to have been in the closest touch with their officers on the spot, instead of throwing the whole burden on them, and expecting that they could get off behind them for all their muddle?
The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to take that from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that there has been this difficult situation for weeks along the Yangtse.
Mr. Churchill: Yes.
The Prime Minister: He knows that there have been rumours of crossings, and rumours of an armistice. We are keeping in touch with the situation, but a particular occasion like this is one for decision. There is no question of sheltering behind any commander on the spot. The commander on the spot took action. I approve his action. I support his action. That does not say that all the time from the Admiralty, the man on the spot, who knows the exact conditions, should be receiving detailed orders.
Sir Arthur Salter: Would the Prime Minister not agree that when a ship is sent on a peaceful mission of this kind there may be something to be said for sending the supplies in either an unarmed ship or in an adequately armed ship, but that a cruiser in a river, without the availability of air protection, is armed, but inadequately armed?
Mr. Mellish: Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement will prove to the country that the Government were actuated by the motive to keep clear of this civil war in China? Is he also aware that the Opposition have indicated that they are prepared to make political capital out of it?
Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in point of fact, the Commander-in-Chief Far East, Admiral Brind, is out in China or is in London? If he is here, when will he return to his post?
The Prime Minister: He is in London at the moment.
Mr. Collins: The Prime Minister mentioned the assistance of United States officials in the area. Can he say whether there is likely to be any concerted action for the protection of British and United States civilians?
The Prime Minister: No, I cannot answer that now.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: In fairness to the local commanders on the spot, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in fact, aircraft were or were not available for them to use, if they desired to use them?
The Prime Minister: No aircraft at Shanghai.
Hon. Members: Where?
The Prime Minister: Hong Kong.
Mr. Thurtle: Mr. Speaker, do you not think we have had enough of this for now?
Major Tufton Beamish: Quite apart from whether aircraft should or should not have been used, the Prime Minister said just now that he did not know what part aircraft might have played in a rescue operation such as this. I want to ask whether it is not a pathetic state of affairs to have a Prime Minister so sublimely ignorant of elementary military matters?
The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not quote me correctly. I said that no one on the Opposition side had suggested exactly what they could have done about it.
Mr. A. R. W. Low: On the question of the availability of aircraft. Were there anywhere any aircraft which the Commander-in-Chief on the spot could have got on call in sufficient time?
The Prime Minister: I cannot answer as to the exact time in detail without notice. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I shall answer it.
Mr. Low: I shall.
Mr. Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that, in spite of the exuberance of the Opposition, he will not take any steps any stronger than those taken by the Americans, whose Embassy has already been violated?
Mr. Speaker: We have had nearly an hour of these questions, and there is certain other Business to be taken. I do not want to stop questions on an important matter such as this, but I would remind the House that we have to deal with other Business.
Brigadier Head: Is the Prime Minister aware that the country can draw only one inference from his answers—
Hon. Members: The Tory Party want war.
Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. and gallant Member wants war.
Brigadier Head: Is the Prime Minister aware that the country can draw only one inference from his answers, and that is that no air support was available at the time?

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1949–50
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

WAR PENSIONS
4.8 p.m.
Mr. Bowen: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add:
"in the opinion of this House it is desirable that a Royal Commission shall be set up to inquire into the present position relative to war pensions and allowances and as to their adequacy under prevailing conditions."
The reason I have the privilege of raising this matter in the House is that I was fortunate in the ballot. It certainly does not arise from the fact that I possess any specialised knowledge or any remarkable practical experience of the administration of war pensions arid allowances. There are many hon. Members who have had far greater experience of this matter than I have. The reason I selected it as a subject for discussion today is that it is a matter on which I feel very deeply, and I am convinced that the proposal put forward in the Amendment is the only right and proper method of dealing with the situation as it exists today.
The subject to which I wish to draw attention is one which has been discussed in this House on a number of occasions within the last twelve months and in another place as recently as two months ago. Since it was last discussed in this House, those of us who are interested in the subject—and I do not think there are many Members who are not—have had an opportunity of contacting our constituents, of meeting representatives of ex-Service men's organisations, which have taken a prominent part in bringing this matter to the attention of the country as a whole, and of contacting in particular pensioners themselves. I have lost no opportunity of discussing the details of their domestic position with the pensioners with whom I have come in contact. I feel that that applies equally
48
to Members of the House as a whole and particularly to those who have indicated their intention of supporting the Amendment. My experience in that direction has reinforced my belief that what we are asking for in the Amendment is reasonable and proper.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for referring to one matter of a general character; that is, the atmosphere in which a Debate of this kind should be conducted. I think that the statement of the Prime Minister today—I am not referring to the supplementary questions which followed his statement—particularly with reference to the gallantry of our seamen on H.M.S. "Amethyst," should create the atmosphere which is proper in discussing a question of this kind. The First Sea Lord sent a message to the crew of H.M.S. "Amethyst," which was quoted in the Press yesterday. He said:
"I have greatly admired your fortitude. You are all much in my thoughts, and everyone is doing his best for you."
That very fine message, sent to those men in the particular situation in which they are at the moment, is a message which might have been sent to many, indeed, probably to most, of the 750,000 men whose position we are considering today. We are dealing with the position of persons whose fortitude we certainly admire and who have been much in our thoughts. The sole motive which I have in moving an Amendment in these terms is to see that we do our best for them.
I mention this because of the developments which have taken place on previous occasions when this subject has been raised. I think that at the proper time it will be perfectly in order to discuss whether a particular party has discharged its responsibilities towards ex-Service men—whether the Conservative Party, the Socialist Party or the Liberal Party has been foremost in discharging that duty—or whether a particular party has failed to discharge its duty, but I respectfully suggest that on this occasion we should try to avoid a purely partisan discussion of that kind. In saying that I would add that what has been done by the present Government during recent months is, of course, relevant. It is relevant to consider whether everything possible has been done and whether, therefore, there is any need for further inquiry into this matter. Another matter which has been raised in

49
the past has been the position and integrity of an ex-Service organisation—I refer to the British Legion—and whether or not it has any political bias. I hold very strong views indeed on that matter, but I appeal to hon. Members not to allow a discussion of this subject on its merits to be side-tracked by an issue of that kind.
Another matter is how far a comparison with the pensions and allowances paid to those injured in industry is relevant. It would certainly be deplorable if this Debate were to become a harangue on whether we are treating those incapacitated by wounds while serving in the Forces better, as well as or far worse than those injured in industry. One point which has been raised on previous occasions is the special arrangements which have been made with regard to the miners. The sole relevancy which I would pray in aid in this connection with regard to the position of persons who have been injured in industry, is the fact that in certain industries—the mining industry, in particular, has been mentioned, and it applies to many other industries—the employer and the worker have both realised that the basic sum paid in respect of injuries is in the present circumstances inadequate, and that some form of substantial supplementation is necessary.
I come to the question whether an arrangement of that kind should be made with regard to ex-Service men. The position of the industrially injured concerning supplementary allowances is relevant in so far as it manifests awareness on the part of the employer and the employee of the inadequacy of the basic arrangements. During the last two years at least, the ex-Service organisations, the public as a whole and Members of this House have had in mind the question whether there should be an investigation into the adequacy of war pensions and allowances by an independent and expert body outside the Ministry itself. I think the House as a whole would agree with me that, certainly amongst the ex-Service organisations themselves, there is complete unanimity on this point; the ex-Service organisations are united in demanding this inquiry.
Mr. Parkin: No one has asked for it.
Mr. Bowen: Does the hon. Gentleman say that no one has asked for it?
Mr. Parkin: Will the hon. Member say which ex-Service organisations have asked for a Royal Commission?
Mr. Bowen: I will deal with that in one moment. [Laughter.] I see no reason for reckless hilarity.
Mr. George Wigg: The hon. Gentleman is dodging the column.
Mr. Bowen: I am not dodging the column at all. What I said was that these organisations are united in asking for an independent inquiry and I repeat it. If anyone wishes to challenge that statement, I will give way to him.
Mr. Parkin: Is it right for an hon. Member to come here and claim the support of ex-Service men's organisations for an Amendment which he has moved, when that Amendment does not in fact ask for the sort of inquiry that those organisations asked for last year?
Mr. Bowen: I do not wish to pursue that point, because I do not think it is relevant to the matter with which I am dealing. I repeat what I said, and my challenge remains: the ex-Service organisations are united in asking for an independent inquiry into the present position. It may assist hon. Members opposite to follow what I shall say later if I now make clear that I do not consider that there is any magic in a Royal Commission, or in any particular form of inquiry. Provided it is an independent inquiry outside the ordinary Ministerial machinery, carried out by appropriate independent persons, that is all I ask for. A conference meeting in the Minister's home town only yesterday manifested its attitude towards this subject. I refer to the British Limbless ex-Service Men's Association conference at Cardiff. Quite apart from the ex-Service organisations themselves, some 270 Members of this House put their names to a Motion demanding an inquiry.
Mr. Tolley: A Select Committee.
Mr. Bowen: I am grateful for that correction. The Motion asked for a Select Committee, an inquiry into the position with regard to pay and allowances. Some 270 Members, drawn from all sides of the House, put their names to that Motion. I do not believe they did that irresponsibly; and in particular

51
I do not believe that hon. Members opposite did so without a full sense of responsibility in the matter. If I remember rightly, they have some reason to have a sense of responsibility in putting their names to documents.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: What about the hon. Gentleman's own sense of responsibility?
Mr. Bowen: I did not need to be reminded of mine. I am sorry to digress like this, but hon. Members are tempting me and I am rising to the bait.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Gentleman is doing the tempting.
Mr. Bowen: I thought I could not possibly have made a more innocuous statement: 270 Members, and in particular Members opposite, were honest and sincere, and acting as responsible Members of Parliament, when they put their names to that Motion. I do not wish to withdraw that statement. Those Members who did that did so—I certainly did—because they believed in what they were putting their names to; it was a reaction to their contacts with their constituents, their correspondents, and the information they received through charitable and other organisations with which they were in contact; that is to say, it was a product of their collective experience in many directions. That has certainly been my experience.
I mention all those matters simply to show that at the moment those in receipt of war pensions and allowances—and indeed ex-Service men as a whole—are deeply disturbed about the present position and feel that there should be at least a proper independent inquiry into the matter. Leaving entirely on one side, for the moment, whether they are right or wrong in coming to that conclusion, in my submission they have come to that conclusion. I have visited, in particular, British Legion branches; I was present at the National Conference for Wales in Llandrindod, and it is perfectly clear that this demand for an inquiry into the present position because of dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs does not spring from the top at all, but is the product of agitation by the rank and file.
Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: Did the hon. Gentleman get these representations from the British Legion branches, and possibly from others in his constituency, before the British Legion started its campaign on this subject, or were they since since that campaign started?
Mr. Bowen: I have been getting them since 1946. That is the operative date in my mind.
Mr. Hale: They have increased since the campaign.
Mr. Bowen: I agree; they have persisted. The most important matter which has exercised their minds, to which they have drawn specific attention and on which there has been no change whatsoever, is the basic pension. There has been a growing feeling since 1946. My experience has been—that of other hon. Members may be different; it varies in areas—that the officers of branches of organisations have been far more restrained in this matter than the rank and file. As far as their demands are concerned—I do not say there is an attempt to run contrary; far from it—certainly it is not a question of their working up enthusiasm which did not exist before. The contrary is the case. All I say is that today there is that frame of mind on the part of the pensioner and the ex-Service man, and whether it arises from good, adequate or inadequate grounds, I am satisfied in my own mind that the most effective way to do away with it is for the Government to institute an independent inquiry. If that is not done, there will be a persisting sense of dissatisfaction.
Commander Pursey: Nonsense.
Mr. Bowen: It is certainly there to-day, and it will persist unless there is an inquiry.
Mr. Parkin: It has died down.
Mr. Bowen: It certainly has not died down. I have been in branches in the last month or two, and that is certainly my experience as far as Wales is concerned. No doubt we shall hear from those who have hail different experiences. In the observations I have made I have tried to avoid contention as far as possible, but it is quite clear that the subject

53
is one on which there is sensitiveness. This is no sectional matter; it applies to everyone, although it may apply in different degrees. Those of us who are interested in the welfare of ex-Service men, particularly those who support this Motion, feel strongly about this matter. The organisations connected with them feel strongly. On the one side, there is obviously a danger of excessive zeal and enthusiasm because of sensitiveness in relation to a worthy cause. On the other side, there is a natural sensitiveness on the part of the Ministry when any suggestions are made that everything possible is not being done. The Ministry and the Government are naturally sensitive if any criticism or attack is made that everything possible for the ex-Service men in relation to pensions is not being done. We have a mutual sensitiveness on both sides.
Mr. Hale: Will the hon. Member tell us what he hopes to get from a Royal Commission? I think that there are many grievances, and I want to say something about them if I have an opportunity to do so in this Debate, but a Royal Commission on pay and allowances, such as the 1920 Commission, could do no more than ascertain the cost of living, which we know, and make recommendations about a basic scale, which we are competent to make. What is the ambit of the proposal and what are the terms of reference the hon. Member suggests for the Royal Commission? Would it deal with some of the very real grievances, or is this to quell a public opinion which, so far as I know. does not exist?
Mr. Bowen: I hope to deal in full with what the hon. Member has in mind. Whether or not there are any grounds for an inquiry, the easiest way to do away with any sense of grievance is to have an inquiry. Secondly, the easiest way to show that everything possible is being done for the ex-Service men is to have an independent inquiry to consider the matter on its merits.
I come now to the practical objects of an inquiry. There can be no doubt that what has really given rise to this movement which seeks to persuade the Government to hold an inquiry of this kind is the conviction that if such an inquiry
54
were held, it would lead to an improvement in pensions and allowances payable to persons at present in receipt of them. It is not part of my case today to argue what improvements should or should not be given.
Commander Pursey: Are there any at all?
Mr. Bowen: I certainly think so, and I will mention a few in a moment. There is certainly the belief that if an inquiry were held, it would result in a recommendation for improved pensions and possibly allowances. I do not want to detail various matters which those of us in favour of an inquiry think the tribunal should investigate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not know why Members opposite should be so uneasy about this matter.
Captain Crookshank: Because they decided to withdraw their names.
Mr. Bowen: There are several matters. For example, B.L.E.S.M.A. has put forward some eleven points. I have had letters from members of organisations that tell a pitiful story, and I will refer to one in a moment. The most pointed grievance is in regard to the basic rate and the adequacy or otherwise of the 35s. payable to an elderly widow living alone.

ROYAL ASSENT
4.35 p.m.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went and, having returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Juries Act, 1949.

2. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1949.

3. Consular Conventions Act, 1949.

4. Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act, 1949.

5. Clyde Navigation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Act, 1949.

6. Wandsworth and District Gas Act, 1949.

7. Hurst Park Race Course Act, 1949.

WAR PENSIONS
Amendment to Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
4.46 p.m.
Mr. Bowen: I was dealing with the question as to what particular grievances were exercising the minds of those people and organisations who were supporting not necessarily the precise terms of my Amendment, but the idea that there should be an independent inquiry into the present position. I do not think it would be fair to the House or to other speakers if I enumerated those many grievances, but there is one matter of so general a character that perhaps I can be forgiven for dealing with it now. It is whether there is a case today for raising the basic rate of pension. I believe there is a strong argument in favour of such a step. The argument of the Ministry is that their very substantial exertions have been directed towards alleviating the lot of the person who has 100 per cent. disability, and who is in need of a special allowance of some kind. During the last few months there has been a very substantial increase in supplementary allowances but on the other hand, there has been no change at all in the basic rate. The overwhelming majority of pensioners have remained unaffected by the increased supplementary allowances. Indeed, I am told that for every 30 pensioners only one qualifies for the additional supplementary allowance.
Mr. Wigg: Is the hon. Gentleman including wives and children in that proportion?
Mr. Bowen: The figure relates to pensioners only.
Mr. Hale: Surely the hon. Gentleman should not include in that calculation persons with a small amount of incapacity. There are 200,000 additional wives and 250,000 additional children, and additional allowances have been given primarily to persons with 60, 70, 80, 90, or 100 per cent. incapacity
Mr. Bowen: I can give those details. We shall have detailed information, because the Minister will be able to assist us on this matter. I certainly do not want to give figures which would in any way misrepresent the position.
Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman said that one out of 30 are benefiting as a
56
result of the bounty given by the Government, but surely it is a gross distortion of the position not to mention that 140,000 wives and 120,000 children are brought in for the first time.
Mr. Bowen: Hon. Members opposite seem to think that I am anxious to underestimate the improvements which have been made by the Government within recent months. I certainly am not. The point I want to make is that the basic rate has not been changed with the result—I speak approximately and no doubt other Members will be able to give exact figures—that some 700,000 have not been affected by recent changes.
Commander Pursey: Nonsense.
Mr. Bowen: No doubt the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) will have an opportunity of speaking and of dealing with the matter, but to the best of my information—and I have made an honest endeavour to get hold of the right information—that is so.
Commander Pursey: Read the Ministry of Pensions Report.
Mr. Bowen: Now that it has been raised let me deal with this question. As I have said, there has been a substantial increase in supplementary allowances. For example, there was an increase in four months from 17,000 to 24,000, or 7,000 altogether. What is exercising my mind is—would these have been introduced earlier if an inquiry had been held in 1946? Would these 7,000 people have had the allowances they are now receiving in 1947 instead of 1949 if we had had an inquiry then? [Laughter.]
Mr. Beverley Baxter: This is not a laughing matter. It is a very serious thing.
Mr. Bowen: In the next 12 months, no doubt there will be some improvements in supplementary allowances. [Interruption.] I am not bickering, but I am trying to be reasonable in looking at the cases of persons who deserve sympathetic consideration. No doubt during the next 12 months there will be further increases in supplementary pensions. The Minister and those who resisted an inquiry in 1946 have made some 40-odd changes since, and my complaint about that is that, while we all welcome these

57
improvements and advances, a piecemeal proposition of that kind is not nearly as satisfactory as an inquiry into the whole matter because then all those improvements might be introduced with greater rapidity.
Those 7,000 to whom I have referred and who are now receiving better allowances might have got them long ago had an inquiry been held. I believe there will be allowances given in the next 12 months which the people who will receive them should have got long ago. It is almost 30 years since we have had an inquiry, so let us have one now and see if, as a result of that inquiry, we cannot get improvements of the kind already introduced, started with greater rapidity. The Minister is in a difficult position. He is feeling his way. The Treasury is all the time placing its clammy hand upon him. That is one of the difficulties, but to my mind the fact that the Government have introduced all these improvements—and I give them full credit for them—is in itself an argument for an inquiry. It is one of the most powerful arguments that one could have.
The Government have refused an increase in the basic rate. I want to suggest one or two arguments in an attempt to show that this is something which should be the subject matter of a careful inquiry from an independent source. It has been said that since 1919 the rate has only increased some 12½ per cent. Let us take the year 1931, which is a particularly favourable year to select. The pensions which some several hundred thousand are in receipt of—and they are the overwhelming majority of pensioners—is only 12½ per cent. more than that given in 1931. Either the amount they are receiving today is wholly inadequate or the amount they received in 1931 was extravagant, because the cost of living, including the cost of the ordinary amenities of life and particularly small luxuries, has advanced so much that to compare 1931 and 1949 on the basis of a 12½ per cent. increase is absolutely unfair to the pensioners. What we ask for is that there should be a closer relationship between the basic pension and the value of money today. I do not think any Member of this House would dispute that that is a valid basis for argument, and that we cannot possibly justify the present basic rates.
Mr. Wigg: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument I should like to ask him if he is aware that the Conservative Party were in office in 1931 and thought that pensions were too high, because it reduced them to 32s. 6d. for the Regulars, and subsequently in 1939 reduced the rate for the war disabled man to the same figure?
Mr. Bowen: I am not interested in what the Conservative Party thought in 1931, but what I am interested in is whether the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) thought it was inadequate or extravagant in 1931?
Mr. Wigg: I certainly did not.
Mr. Bowen: I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement, and if he takes the view that 40s. was adequate or at least not extravagant in 1931, can he possibly say that 45s. now is the rate equivalent to 40s. then?
Mr. Wigg: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that there is no pensioner receiving 45s. alone. He must have an additional income.
Mr. W. J. Brown: The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has had more than his fair share of interruptions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is interrupting now?"] He has given way to me.
Mr. Hale: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) did not say that he rose on a point of Order.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is presumably addressing me on a point of Order.
Mr. Brown: No, Sir.
Mr. Hale: On a point of Order. How does the hon. Member for Rugby come to be addressing the Chair at all?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon Gentleman who is addressing the Cha gives way, other hon. Members are entitled to intervene.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Member gives way to me in order that I may put a point. I wish to put that point, which is to ask him whether, in order that we may the better compare the figures for 1931 with the figures for 1949, he will give us the corresponding figures for the

59
cost of living in those two years? That would help us to assess the adequacy of the payments.
Mr. Bowen: I am sorry that I cannot give those precise figures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think there is anything extraordinary about that. We are told by Government spokesmen that the comparative value of the £1 today is 12s. That gives us some basis of comparison. Certainly, the purchasing power of the £1 in 1931 is not more than 12s. now. I think that that is quite enough for the purposes of my argument. It has been said that most of these people, if, they are not in employment—this is the point which was put to me by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—are receiving supplementary allowances and that they are considerably better off than they were. That was undoubtedly the position.
Apart from those people, the overwhelming majority of pensioners are in employment and are not in receipt of any supplementary allowance. They are on the basic rate which was fixed in 1919, and which operated in 1931. The only answer which I have heard from the Minister of Pensions to the request to give these people an increase is, "If these people are working, they are receiving the benefit of the general rise in wages." I have heard no other argument.
Commander Pursey: What more does the hon. Member want?
Mr. Bowen: I shall analyse that argument, if hon. Members opposite will allow me. An ex-Service man cannot be said to be receiving from the general rise in wages any extra benefit over the community as a whole. When pensions were originally fixed it was not on the balls of unemployment. They were fixed in 1919 on the basis that the overwhelming majority of the pensioners would be working. The payment of pensions, whether of 40, 50, 60 or 100 per cent., was not on the basis of compensation for unemployability. Ever since the system was introduced the overwhelming majority of the men have been in employment. There is no change in circumstances of that kind, but there has been a general rise in wages, in which everyone has participated. The change which has been considerable has been the loss
60
in value of the pension to the person who has been able to work.
There are many factors in this position which we tend to ignore. If the pensioner has a substantial degree of incapacity he is not in as good a position from the competitive point of view, although he is working, as is a hale and hearty person who suffers from no incapacity. I am not suggesting that this is the general position, but in many instances the pensioner's earning power is affected by his incapacity. It is unfair to the people concerned that we should ignore points of that kind. Further, a pensioner often works when it probably would be far better, from a medical point of view, if he did not work. He cannot afford to bring up or he does not feel justified in bringing up his family on the pension available to him.
I should like to refer to letters which I have had. I have had a host of them. Let me refer to one of them. Here is one from a person who is not a constituent of mine. He suffers from 100 per cent. incapacity. He is a married man with one child and he is entitled to £3 5s. a week. The point he makes is: "I do not feel that it would be honourable for me to attempt to keep my wife, myself and my child on £3 5s. a week. Therefore, I make a special effort to go out to work." That man is individually assessed for three separate incapacities and he has been awarded 80 per cent. under one heading, 70 per cent. under another and 40 per cent. under the other. In his letter he says:
"The Minister has given figures of the number of men who whilst drawing 100 per cent. disability pension, are able to work. The words should be 'have to work,' for the rate of pension is so meagre. Those who become eligible for the extra grants are those whose case is so hopeless that they are unable even to do such cripples' work as making baskets, artificial flowers, etc. But there are thousands of others who are considered able to do something, and it is they who must toil under discomfort and pain out of sheer necessity. A man assessed at 100 per cent. disability with a wife and child gets £3 2s. 6d. Is it human to expect him to live on it, a rate lower than an organised worker will take, and considering that but for his disability he might have been among the best paid workers in the land? And where is the so-called compensation to him for his sufferings? He must go out to work to keep his family, although he would prefer to take life easier."
He refers to his own incapacity and then he says something which is particularly significant:

61
"Should you in any way refer to my case as an example, I should not like my name to be divulged, as my employers are unaware of the extent of my disability."
Commander Pursey: I am very reluctant to interfere at all in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he has not given the House half the picture. I have been given figures for the 100 per cent. disability for a man, wife and child. If I am wrong, the hon. Member can ask the Minister to correct me. The figures are: 45s. for the man himself; 30s. unemployment supplement; 10s. for his wife and 7s. 6d. for a child. That makes a total of £4 12s. 6d. If I am wrong, I stand subject to correction. The hon. Gentleman must tell the full story and not give the wrong figures.
Mr. Bowen: We may get more expert opinion than mine later on in the Debate. I have no reason to think that the figure which this man gives in his letter is wrong and I have every reason to think that the hon. and gallant Member who interrupts me is wrong. I hope that the Minister will correct me here and now if my correspondent's figure is wrong. That would be the most satisfactory thing for him to do. The figure is that for sufferers who have a wife and one child, the entitlement, if they are at work, is £3 5s. per week. If that figure is wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct me here and now.
The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): The hon. Member asks me to correct him. He should know that it is never possible in individual cases to say what the correct figure should be without first looking at the papers to see that the man in question is getting all that to which he is entitled. I have written to every pensioner in the land stating what his entitlement is and asking him to let me know if he is not getting it. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly send me details of the case. It may be that the man is eligible for the special allowance to supplement inadequate wages due to inability. If that is so, I shall be glad to consider the case.
Mr. Bowen: I do not wish to pursue this further but it is—
Commander Pursey: All wrong.
Mr. Bowen: What I say is that if a person suffering from 100 per cent. disability considers his pension to be inadequate and goes out to work, after
62
working a full week he would normally receive £3 5s. for himself, his wife and one child. In some cases there may be circumstances to qualify him for more. However, the man to whom I am referring is not in receipt of any more than that.
The fact that wages have increased is in itself an argument in favour of an increase in the basic rate. We have had increases of from 80 to 200 per cent. in wages. Every day we hear fresh information about advances in wages. Today we have had news suggesting that both the police and His Majesty's Judges may receive a rise in pay. The reason for these rises in pay is the rise in the cost of living. The Royal Commission of 1919, when the original rates were laid down, made it quite clear that the object of the basic pension was in some way to compensate for the loss of ordinary amenities by the person suffering war injuries. If that is the basis, can it be said that the person who at that period was getting 40s. a week to compensate him for loss of amenities is adequately compensated at 45s. a week now for the loss of the same amenities? There is a substantial divergence of opinion whether the basic rate should be increased. It is a matter on which the ex-Service organisations feel very strongly. There is certainly a prima facie case for an increase, and that is surely an argument for the whole matter to be carefully investigated by an independent tribunal. The question is becoming all the more acute because the pensioner of the 1914–1918 war is now reaching a difficult period, particularly if he is a manual worker. Imagine the position of a manual worker of about 60 years of age with a 40 per cent. disability. The purchasing power of his pension today cannot be compared with what it was before the war.
Why does the Minister resist the suggestion for an inquiry? He may say that there is nothing to inquire into. I do not see how he can reconcile that attitude with the fact that improvements have been made since he resisted the proposal to have an inquiry. The number in receipt of supplementary allowances has increased from 17,000 to 24,000. Surely that was a matter which called for an inquiry. Does the Minister now suggest that the matters calling for inquiry no longer exist? It may be said that there

63
is already adequate machinery for carrying out inquiries of this kind.
It has been suggested that one side of the machinery of the Central Advisory Committee can look into the matters with which we are concerned. Under the terms on which the Central Advisory Committee was set up the Minister can seek as advice over a wide field. I understand one of the complaints to be that it can only give advice on matters on which it's advice is sought. Has the Minister sought the advice of the committee on the desirability of setting up an independent inquiry? I am sure that if that question was put to the committee the committee would definitely be in favour of setting up such an inquiry. We know that the majority of the members of that committee are in favour of an inquiry. Since the initiation of the movement for an inquiry, welfare officers have been established by the Minister. No doubt they are doing very good work indeed. Surely their experience and the information they have gleaned could best be sifted by an inquiry so that the improvements to which ex-Servicemen are entitled could be given to them with the least possible delay.
I am sorry that I have detained the House for so long. It is in part due to intervention by others for which I may have been responsible. I ask the Minister to look at this matter again. I do not believe there is magic in a Royal Commission although that is the machinery I suggest in my Amendment. These questions are reflected in terms of human suffering and human kindness and they exercise the minds of ex-Service organisations, the pensioners and all of us who are concerned with the welfare of pensioners. Some of these questions are difficult ones from the point of view of our own financial position and by reason of the fact that there is a link-up with industrial injuries. All I ask is that these questions should be referred to an independent body so that they may be sifted and that we may have an expert Report on them.
Fortunately the industrial worker has machinery whereby, if he considers that his wages or his basic disability payments are inadequate, additional arrangements can be made. I am sure that the supporters of this Amendment share my
64
pleasure that arrangements of that kind have been made. However, ex-Service men have no machinery whereby through some private arrangement the basic pension payable to these 700,000 people can be supplemented by an additional payment. All these supplementary payments to industry fall on the public. The persons in receipt of them make an appropriate contribution but in the end the burden falls on the public just as the burden falls on the public as a whole if any improvement is made in the basic rates of pensions payable to ex-Service men.
The setting up of machinery for an independent inquiry will dissipate the dissatisfaction which undoubtedly exists among pensioners and ex-Service men as a whole. We shall then have the help of an expert report on all sorts of problems on which people, all of whom are equally sincere, are very divided. I refer in particular to the possibility of an increase in the basic rate. The only motive I have in raising the matter is to ventilate what I believe to be a genuine grievance on the part of pensioners at the moment. My argument in favour of an inquiry is that if there is one the whole of the matter can be sifted. I believe that an inquiry will result in further betterment to the pensioner. Whether it does or whether it does not, if we are to discharge our duty properly, if the pensioner is to be conscious that we are trying to do the best we can for him in present circumstances, the proper way is to institute an inquiry on the lines I suggest.
In the past the Minister has indicated his objections to such a step. I hope he will reconsider this matter. I do not think this is a question on which the House should he divided, if possible—
Commander Pursey: Why not?
Hon. Members: Stand up.
Mr. Price-White: On a point of Order. Surely the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) is displaying gross discourtesy to the Chair and to the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House? Will he please stand up if he sees fit to interrupt?
Mr. Bowen: There may be differences between the Minister and those who support this Amendment but there were

65
over 60 Members on the Government side who put their names to a Motion asking for an inquiry. I have no doubt that many more are in sympathy with the contents of that Motion but thought it would be better not to put their names to it. I speak after conversation with the persons concerned when I say that they are with us, in the sense that they sympathise with the object—and I do not see who could not do so—of bringing this matter forward, as well as with the specific suggestion I have made.
The reason why I say that this is a matter on which a Division should be avoided if possible is that I do not think there is any real division on the point that we all want to do what is best for these people. I do not think that the majority of hon. Members opposite who have interrupted me really believe that everything possible is being done at the moment. It is not a question of finding fault with a Minister, but I do not think that everything practicable is being done at the moment any more than I thought so 12 months ago before those many changes were made. If there were an inquiry of this kind, the attention of people appropriate to deal with it would be concentrated on the possibility of further advancement and of greater alleviation of the lot of these people. That is why I hope the Minister will be able to concur with the suggestion of an inquiry. I do not place any magic upon the specific form of it provided that it is held by an independent body of suitable persons to look into the question.
If the Minister looks at this matter again sympathetically and is prepared to meet the persons who have supported the Motion in that way, he will certainly not be doing anything which could reflect to his own discredit or to the discredit of his party; he would be doing something which would meet with the approval and the appreciation of the rank and file of ex-Service men throughout the country, and in doing so he would be helping himself in his task of assisting the pensioners and ex-Service men to face the world in what to many of them today are very difficult circumstances.
Mr. Edgar Granville: I beg to second the Amendment.
5.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): As
66
this is my first appearance at this pox, and my first attempt to address this House in this Parliament, I trust I shall receive the sympathy of my hon. Friends on all sides.
In view of the questions earlier this afternoon, I would, first say that my Ministry wishes to express sincere sympathy with the dependants of those who were killed and wounded in the trouble with which we are concerned. They are doing all they can to expedite dealing with claims for pension and benefit. All victims, including the widows of those killed or who have died of wounds will be eligible for the full war pensions benefits. In the case of widows and dependants receiving Service allowances, those allowances will continue to be paid by the Admiralty for 13 weeks after death. Before the termination of the payment of the Service allowances, an appropriate award under the War Pensions Naval Order will have been determined and notified.
Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? I suppose by "these troubles" he refers to the outrageous behaviour of the Chinese Communists on the Yangtse? Do I understand him to say that these people will be treated as pensioners on a war footing—as indeed they are—who have taken part in war operations?
Mr. Simmons: Yes, all of them will be eligible for the full benefits under the War Pensions Order.
For the purpose of this Debate hon. Members should have considered three documents. There should be before them the Civil Estimates, Class 8, for the new financial year. They should also have in mind the Supplementary Estimate of last year for £2,417,000 which the House has already approved without Debate. And to understand fully what all these Estimates mean, and how much is paid to different classes of pensioner, they should also have studied carefully the 23rd Report of the Ministry.
Very little discussion on war pensions has taken place in the earlier years of the present Parliament but in July last there were two general Debates. Since then there has been a fairly long Adjournment Debate in which warm approval was expressed on all sides of the House for the new welfare service. There were

67
also Debates on the Pensions Appeals Tribunals Bill which passed without a Division at any stage.
Brigadier Peto: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Adjournment Debate of December, 1947, on which I raised this same subject?
Mr. Simmons: I do not wish to repeat much of what has been said on previous occasions, but I must refer to certain major matters and try to bring up to date the story already told in the previous Debates and especially in the 23rd Report. I would say in passing that no one who has not read that Report properly is really qualified to take part in this Debate.
First, let me repeat what has been said many times before. A war pension is money compensation for loss of physical function due to war injury; it is not intended to be a pensioner's sole income. A war pensioner is a member of the community like other citizens. Indeed, our whole effort is constantly directed through hospitals, treatment centres, limb fitting centres, training and rehabilitation centres, and so on, to bring him back after his injury into the normal life of the community. We desire that no war disabled man shall feel that he is in the category of the forgotten men but, instead, that he shall feel that in this Ministry there are those who care for him and care about his problems. We stress, with all the emphasis at our command, that our enlarged welfare staff is composed of officers who, by training and temperament, are fully qualified to be, and are in fact, the pensioners' friend and the friend and adviser of all ex-Service personnel and their dependants who have a claim on their services.
Like other members of the community the war pensioner may be in employment and earning wages. Nobody denies that the vast majority are in employment. Neither does anybody deny that the majority, even of those classified as 100 per cent. disabled, are in employment; but if pensioners are out of employment or absent from work through sickness, then, like other members of the community, most of them are entitled to unemployment insurance, sickness benefit, old age' pension or other provisions of our national social services.
68
When comparisons are made between war pensions payable today and those payable in 1920 it is too often forgotten that the general social services in 1920 bear no comparison with those of today. All too frequently in those days the pension was the injured man's sole income. I speak of this from personal experience, because I have been unemployed as a disabled ex-Service man. If in those days a man experienced an illness or disease unconnected with his war service, or if his wife or children became ill, the pensioner had to meet medical expenses as best he could or go without the necessary medical attention. Today, the National Health Service comes to his aid. The consequence of the development of the general social services and the provision of full employment has been that no pensioner of the private soldier rank need be wholly dependent today upon his war pension.
In July last my right hon. Friend told the House that he did not know of a single 100 per cent. disabled man whose sole income was his basic pension of 45s. a week. That statement was reprinted in more than one ex-Service journal and in several newspapers. As a result, over a period of nine months not more than seven or eight cases of that kind have been discovered. In every one of these cases we have been able to pay the pensioner one or more of the various supplements which are available.
In this connection I should like to quote an actual case which was brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister by a Member of this House. A young unmarried pensioner, suffering from tuberculosis, was trying to live on his pension of 45s. A welfare officer was sent immediately to see him and took him a grant of £5 from the King's Fund to pay for extra luxuries. Within a few days of this case being brought to our notice, unemployability supplement of 30s. and constant attendance allowance of 30s. were awarded—an addition of £3 a week. The secretary of the M.P. who had raised the case was overwhelming in her praise and thanks to the Minister. It was most regrettable that we did not know of that man and his position earlier, but the fact that when we did know of him we were able to deal with him in that way proves the need for my right hon. Friend's letter to pensioners, which has already brought us a very good response. It proves also

69
that we will remedy an injustice as quickly as possible whenever we learn of it. If any Member of this House is aware of a case where he thinks there is a grievance of that kind, he has only to see the Minister or myself or write to the Department to be assured that the same treatment will be applied as in the case I have described.
Mr. Kirkwood: Was that man from Scotland?
Mr. Simmons: It was a London case. These supplements are an essential part of our present system of war pensions. They are integral to the Government's policy of providing the maximum benefit to those who have been most severely injured and whose needs are greatest. Examples of the working of these supplements, and the way in which the benefits have been varied according to the needs of the individual, are given in tabular form in the 23rd Report of the Ministry. Perhaps I may refresh the minds of hon. Members by quoting one or two of the instances which are given. In the 1914–18 war a pensioner with a wife and one child, who was married before disablement, would receive 40s. basic pension, 10s. wife allowance and 7s. 6d. child allowance.
Mr. David Renton: From what page of the Report is the hon. Gentleman reading?
Mr. Simmons: Page 10. In that case the total amounted to 57s. 6d. On the 1939–45 war pensions scale, introduced in 1939, a pensioner would have received 32s. 6d. basic pension, 5s. wife allowance and 5s. child allowance, making a total of 42s. 6d. Today he would be drawing 98s. 6d., which is made up of 45s. 0d. basic pension, 16s. wife allowance. 7s. 6d. child allowance and 30s. unemployability supplement. That case, I think, is a fair sample. I could quote others.
Mr. Kirkwood: What was the total in the case the hon. Gentleman has just quoted?
Mr. Simmons: The total is 98s. 6d. a week.
Mr. Shurmer: And he can still apply for more.
Mr. Simmons: I do not want to weary the House with a lot of quotations. I
70
think that that case is probably a fair sample.
If we are to have comparisons from say, the Legion, let us have all those which are relevant, including that of today with the Chamberlain Government rates of 1939, when the basic rate was a bare £1 12s. 6d., compared with £2 5s., with supplementations, today. I have given one example of supplementations. There is also the position of men undergoing treatment. By the 1939 Chamberlain figures, a man receiving treatment allowance would be drawing £1 2s. a week, 5s. for his wife and, 8s. 4d. for his two children, making a total of £1 15s. 4d. In present circumstances, he would be drawing £2 5s. instead of £1 2s., 16s. for his wife instead of 5s., and 15s. instead of 8s. 4d. for his two children, making a total of £3 16s., plus 5s. family allowance and £1 6s. special allowance if he is not in receipt of sickness benefit. Therefore, without the additions, the difference is one of between £1 15s. 4d. and £3 16s.
Earl Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman has given us these very interesting figures, can he tell us how the general level of wages has gone up since that time and what relation the figures bear to the cost of living? It would be very interesting to make these comparisons; otherwise the hon. Gentleman's figures have no value whatever.
Commander Pursey: Nonsense!
Mr. Simmons: The noble Lord does not put me off as easily as that. I may be new here but I have spoken before outside the House and I am not thrown off my stride by an irrelevant question. like that. I have already—
Earl Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that a courteous invitation to him to give the cost of living and wages figures is an irrelevant interruption? They may prove his case. Will he give the figures?
Mr. Simmons: I said it was an irrelevant interruption because we are dealing with pensions which are not, and are not intended to be, the sole income of the pensioner.
Sir Ian Fraser: This is a small point, but is it not the fact that in that particular case, those figures represented the only income?
Mr. Simmons: The basic pension is not the only income.
Sir I. Fraser: It was in the case the hon. Gentleman was quoting.
Mr. Simmons: Under the 1939 Chamberlain figures the widow would get £1 2s. 6d. and 10s. for two children, a total of £1 12s. 6d. Today the same widow would be getting £1 15s., plus £1 2s. for two children and a 7s. rent allowance, making a total of £3 4s., compared with £1 12s. I know that perhaps certain hon. Members do not like these comparisons, but other comparisons have been made. Every hon. Member has been circularised with comparisons and the whole campaign of the British Legion has been for comparisons. If we are to have comparisons, let us have them all. not just some of them.
Vice-Admiral Taylor Vice-Admiral Taylor (Paddington. South) rose—
Mr. Simmons: Get back on the quarter deck, will you?
Hon. Members: Order.
Earl Winterton: Is a Minister entitled to address an offensive remark, "Get into your pew," to an hon. Member?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I did not hear what was said, but the hon. and gallant Member persisted in trying to interrupt.
Earl Winterton: May I tell you what the Minister was saying? Pointing in a most insolent way he said, "Get back on your quarter deck." Is that proper language for a Minister to use to you, Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, but I do not think it was addressed to me.
Earl Winterton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it. I heard him make the remark and he has been long enough on the Front Bench to know that he should address the Chair.
Mr. Simmons: If I have offended the dignity of the House, I will withdraw it. I knew the hon. and gallant Member was an Admiral and the remark came naturally.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: I only wanted the comparison between concrete sums. I want to know the value in the first case
72
as compared with the second so that it would be a fair and complete comparison.
Mr. Simmons: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member wants me to do his arithmetic for him, but all the figures are available in publications of the House. I am giving comparisons which are relevant to this Debate and comparing the position now with that which existed before this campaign was started. It has often been repeated in propaganda put out by the British Legion that in the last 20 years the basic rate has been increased by only 121 per cent. As a matter of fact, it has been increased for the 1939 war pensioner by 38 per cent. The statement is less than half true when it is said that the increase has been 12½ per cent. for the 1914–18 war pensioner, as it ignores the increase in supplementary payments and the wide extension of eligibility for those payments. In fact the average payment made to 100 per cent. disabled pensioners of private soldier rank was £2 7s. 10d. in the year ended March, 1939, £3 17s. 3d. in the year ending March, 1948, and £4 2s. at 31st March, 1949. That is an increase between 1938 and today of 72 per cent.
For lower degrees of disablement the increase, of course, is not so great for the simple reason that the misfortunes of those men are less than those of the most severely disabled. But even for those the increase in actual payments has been 33 per cent. The vast majority of these men have benefited, of course, from the increase in wage rates, of which much play has been made in this Debate. Those wage rates appear to me to be used as part of a campaign to divide the ex-Service man from the non-Service man and play off one against the other and say, "Look at the greedy trade unionists, getting increases in wages." What hon. Members who take that line forget is that the ex-Service men themselves are benefiting by increased wage rates. It is true that they may have to pay a high rate of Income Tax on the wages but they have an advantage over ordinary wage earners in that all the pension allowances are tax-free.
During the years the present Government have been in power, there has been a steady stream of improvements in the number of allowances, the amount of allowances and eligibility for allowances.

73
It was suggested in the Debate in July that the number of allowances in payment was too small in relation to known cases of need among pensioners. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend set himself to ensure that every pensioner should be made aware of all these new improvements, a job which the Legion ought to have done themselves. He not only developed the Welfare Service and gave 100,000 personal, private and voluntary interviews to pensioners, but also sent to almost every pensioner a personal letter and leaflet—of which every hon. Member has received a copy—asking if they were sure they were receiving all the benefits to which they were entitled. Within a few weeks, every pensioner will have received such a letter and leaflet.
The result of all this and the humane and sympathetic administration was the Supplementary Estimate which the House recently approved. It provided for an additional £1,405,000 in pensions, gratuities and treatment allowances over and above Estimates previously presented. Other Supplementary Estimates attracted much attention and provoked much sound and fury, but this went by almost unnoticed.
I wish to say something about some of the main allowances. The rate of the unemployability supplement, which is paid to a man prevented by war disablement from entering or keeping his place in the employment field, is 30s. weekly and it carries an extra 6s. for a dependent wife, making a total basic pension of 91s. for man and wife. At 31st March, 1948, 8,300 of these supplements were in payment. Today there are 13,020, an increase of approximately 57 per cent. The special hardship allowance is paid up to a maximum of 20s. where a pensioner is employable hut, because of his disablement, is incapable of following his former occupation, or one of an equivalent standard. Twelve months ago 2,250 of these allowances were in payment and today the number is 10,160, an increase of 350 per cent. The constant attendance allowance is paid to totally disabled pensioners who require help in every-day matters, and the rate ranges from 10s. to 40s. a week. A year ago 5,000 allowances were in payment. Today there are 6,650 of these allowances, an increase of 33 per cent.
Grouping the three supplementary allowances together, we find there has been
74
an increase in the 12 months from 15,550 to 29,830, a percentage increase of 92 per cent. After all these figures, who dare cast my right hon. Friend in the rôle of Scrooge, the miser? With his leaflet inviting pensioners to "Have a go" and by helping them with their questions and then, if their questions seem somewhere nearly right, saying "Give him the money, Barney," he is rather more in the character of Wilfred Pickles than of Scrooge.
Earl Winterton: Who is "barmy."
Mr. Simmons: I was looking across at the other side of the House.
Earl Winterton: Then I must raise a point of Order and call attention to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has described someone in this House as "barmy."
Mr. Simmons: I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong. I did not refer to anyone as being "barmy"; he used the word himself, and therefore my reply to him, when he used that word, was that I was looking at the other side of the House.
Earl Winterton: Quite seriously, I do not know about whom the hon. Gentleman is talking. Who is the person to whom he addressed his remark. Who is Barney or "barmy"? Is it one of his hon. Friends who is sitting beside him?
Mr. Simmons: It is apparent that the noble Lord fails to listen to the most human programme broadcast by the B.B.C.
If the administration of my right hon. Friend is to be attacked by hon. Gentlemen opposite by comparing it with previous administrations, they must, on the figures I have already given, attack it for extravagance, not for parsimony. Let us see how the figures of total expenditure compare. In 1919–20, the year after the end of 1914–18 war, the Ministry's benefit expenditure, that is, on pensions, medical treatment, provision of artificial limbs, etc., but excluding the cost of administration, was £94 million. The peak was reached in the following year, 1920–21, when the figure was £100 million. In 1921–22 there was a drop of £10 million. A further big decline took place in 1922–23, when total benefit expenditure was £76,500,000. Thus, expenditure in the fourth post-war year after the 1914–18 war was 75 per cent.

75
of that of the first post-war year. Thereafter, the expenditure declined steadily and continuously until the outbreak of the 1939 war.
Hostilities in the 1939 war ceased in 1945, and in the following year, 1946–47, the total benefit expenditure in respect of both wars was £82 million. In 1947–48 it rose to £85 million; and in 1948–49 it further increased to £86 million. Provision has been made for expenditure of £84 million in 1949–50. Thus, expenditure in the fourth post-war year is expected to be 102 per cent. of that in the first post-war year. The anticipated expenditure in 1949–50 is £2 million in excess of that spent in 1946–47, compared with a drop of 17½ million in the comparable period after the 1914–18 war.
Pensioners of both wars have benefited from the improvements reflected by this increase. Thus, the expenditure on 1914–18 war pensions, which declined by nearly £5 million in the five years from 1938–39 to 1943–44, rose in the following five years by some £3 million, despite the steady decrease in the number of pensions by death. This again proves that the 1914–18 pensioner is not regarded by this Ministry as a forgotten man. The leaflets sent out have reminded the first war pensioner that the amount of pension is open to sympathetic review if there has been material and permanent worsening of the war disablement. Substantial numbers of applications are coming in, and in the large majority of the cases a medical examination is arranged. During the four years up to December, 1948, some 2,400 a the 1914–18 war pensioners were given increased assessments The effect of the leaflets and Welfare Service is shown by the fact that in the nine months since July, 1948, approximately 2,000 of this class of pensioners have received increased awards. A lot of cases remain to be investigated. Since January, 1949, some 7,200 applications for review of final awards have been received, and decisions have so far been reached in 3,800 cases. Increases have been authorised in about 750 cases. The average increase in assessment is 29 per cent.
I am convinced that far greater benefit results to the needy and suffering from this policy of stabilising the rate of basic pension and supplementing it according
76
to need than would follow from making an increase in the basic rate. That would be to make a gift, at a time when we are warned of the growing burden of our social services, to many thousands who do not need it. The great majority of Members of this House approved the recent Budget proposals. They will not be surprised to learn, therefore, that I have no great changes to announce today. The Budget is the background against which we have to review all our problems. In spite of the economic position, this Government have made close upon 50 improvements in the position of war pensioners and their dependants, and last year presented a Supplementary Estimate. It is the worst kind of partisan political propaganda for those who know the real position to make demands which they know are at the moment impossible—demands which were never made when a Tory Government was in power.
I believe that the majority of ex-Service men are grateful to this Government for the new outlook in the Ministry of Pensions and for the concessions made, after waiting since 1920 to get them from other Governments. The Legion leaflet actually states the concessions, and the complaint against the Government is that they have made concessions for which the Legion has been asking since 1920. I am sure that true patriotism still burns in the breasts of the ex-Service men of this country, because I am one of them, and that it burns so strongly that they would resent being made pawns in a political game in a time of national emergency and necessity.
Mr. Bowen: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the demand for an inquiry is making someone a pawn in a political game? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] What possible motive other than to ascertain the facts could there be in asking for an inquiry?
Mr. Simmons: I am suggesting that the whole set-up of the campaign against the Government on pensions must be a political campaign because it ignores the good work which the Government have done.
In spite of the fact that this House has approved of the Budget, and while we realise the economic position of the country, there are, however, further improvements which the Government have decided to make. I refer, first, to widows

77
of the 1914–18 war in receipt of modified pensions. In July, 1948, modified pensions granted to certain widows under the provisions of Articles 16A and 17A of the 1914–18 war Warrants were increased to 26s. a week, that is, to the equivalent of the National Insurance rates of widows' pensions, but the position remained that a comparable 1939–45 World War widow received the higher pension of 35s. a week—or more, according to her late husband's rank. The Government have decided to remove this disparity of rates, and accordingly a 1914–18 war widow at present receiving a modified pension under Articles 16A and 17A of 1914–18 Warrants will, if she is over 40, or has children or is incapable of self-support, have her pension increased to the standard rate—35s. for the widow of a private, and the appropriate higher rate for the widow of a non-commissioned officer or commissioned officer. The new rates will take effect as from the first pay day in June. This review will be automatic; application is not necessary.
Secondly, with regard to the conditions of the award of the special hardship allowance to 1914–18 war pensioners, an additional allowance may be paid to a partly disabled pensioner who, in consequence of war disablement, is permanently incapable of resuming his former occupation, or one of an equivalent standard. The maximum allowance is 20s. per week, but the total pension and the allowance may not exceed an amount equivalent to a pension at the 100 per cent. rate. For pensioners of the 1939–45 war the comparison is made between the present and pre-Service occupation. For the 1914–18 war pensioner, eligibility depends on a change of occupation having taken place after 1st July, 1945, and a comparison of the changed occupation with that regularly followed for a reasonable period up to that date.
When he announced this condition Mr. Buchanan suggested that it might be necessary to look at this date again and some hon. Members have expressed concern at the small numbers of allowances paid to 1914–18 war pensioners compared with the 1939–45 war pensioners. The Government have therefore decided that in future the test shall be a comparison between the pensioner's present occupation and the most favourable which he followed for
78
a reasonable period between 1st July. 1944, and 1st July, 1945. Unemployment among men was at a lower level in 1944 than in 1945. Thus I hope that a substantial number of claimants may benefit from this change. This change in the qualifying conditions for payment of the allowance will take effect as from the first pay day in June. Application will be necessary.
Then there is the new Royal Warrant. As the House is aware, the Government have decided that the Minister of Pensions is to be responsible for the administration of pensions in respect of disablement or death arising from future peace-time service in the Armed Forces. A new Royal Warrant to be issued shortly gives effect to that decision. It does not provide for a new pensions scheme for the peacetime Forces, but makes broadly the same provisions for pensions and other grants as those contained in the existing 1939 war Warrant of April, 1946, and amending warrants, which it consolidates and will replace. The definition of "war service" is replaced by a definition of "service," which covers part-time service in the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces. The new Warrant will embody the pension improvements which have been made since the last amending Warrant of 8th May, 1947, was issued, most of which have been announced in the House in Debates or in reply to Questions, and it will embody the two new improvements which I have just announced.
The Warrant is, of course, a prerogative instrument; when signed by the King and the Minister it v. ill, by His Majesty's Command, be laid before Parliament. Corresponding provisions will be made for the Naval and Air Forces. The instrument for the Naval Forces is an Order in Council made under the Naval and Marine Pay and Pension Act, 1865. The instrument for the Air Force is an Order by His Majesty made under the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917. Both instruments, when signed, will be laid before Parliament in accordance with the provisions of their respective Acts—
Sir I. Fraser: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to ask a question? In view of the fact that these instruments cannot be amended, will the Government follow the precedent which Sir Walter Womersley initiated, or at any rate practised. By

79
laying a draft Warrant, so that the provisions can be looked at before it is too late to amend them?
Mr. Simmons: The Minister will deal fully with that, but the position remains as the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said at the time. I am sorry, I did not finish my sentence.
Sir I. Fraser: I am very sorry. I did not mean to interrupt the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Simmons: The instrument for the Air Force is an Order by His Majesty made under the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917. Both instruments, when signed, will be laid before Parliament in accordance with the provisions of their respective Acts, which do not adopt either the affirmative or the negative Resolution procedure.
More important than the payment of pensions is the need to help the disabled man and woman to regain as fully as possible a normal life in society. This we seek to do through our administration. I cannot take time to describe the admirable work of our hospitals and our other medical services. I can only ask hon. Members to read for themselves what is said about them in the Report. If there are hon. Members who are interested in this work and who have never visited one of these hospitals, I should be glad to arrange visits for them. I need hardly say, I hope, that hon. Members are welcome to visit our offices and treatment centres near their own constituencies.
I wish to quote some of the tributes the Ministry has received with regard to the service given at our institutions. This one is from the "News Chronicle" of 19th April this year. It is the story of a man who met with an accident. The man's father writes:
"…it was thought that my son would be on his back for the rest of his life; that he would never be able to walk again. But a great miracle has taken place. Thanks to the Queen Mary's Roehampton Hospital limb-fitting centre, he is able to go about again. The doctors and fitter…challenge the world to make such another case as my son's walk."
That is one tribute to our work at Roehampton, of which I myself have had personal experience. Another letter reads:
80
"May I express my deep appreciation of the courtesy and kindly consideration extended to patients attending the limb-fitting centre. From the reception clerks, the surgeon, the limb-makers and training instructor, I received that friendly co-operation that is so reassuring to one who is, perhaps, oversensitive to his affliction."
Those are indications of the work, the humane work, we are doing in the hospitals and limb-fitting centres and we hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity of seeing some of them.
Earl Winterton: Surely the hon. Gentleman would not wish to give a wrong impression. All these hospitals have gone on for a long time, and every Minister of Pensions, quite properly, points out the valuable work which has been done. It is in no sense a party matter.
Mr. Simmons: I am very surprised at the noble Lord. I was not using this as a party matter. I am reporting on the work of the Ministry and I am entitled at this Box to be proud of the work which the Ministry is doing. I say that we have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary we are proud of our achievement, and we are glad that under the National Health Service we are able to make many of our services available to every citizen who may need them. One new method of helping the severely disabled to adjust themselves to daily life has been inaugurated—
Earl Winterton: I think that the hon. Gentleman unconsciously is being very unfair. What I said was that every Minister of Pensions has, quite rightly, called attention to the splendid work done by these hospitals. The hon. Gentleman is deliberately attempting to give the impression that this is the work of the present Government. It is not.
Commander Pursey: Nonsense.
Mr. Simmons: I certainly rate the intelligence of hon. Members on both sides of the House higher than does the noble Lord. One new method of helping the severely disabled to adjust themselves to daily life has been inaugurated by my right hon. Friend. It is the provision of small motor cars. Up to date 164 of these have been delivered to pensioners. The value of this amenity is best expressed in the pensioners' own words. My right hon. Friend has received many letters

81
from pensioners who have received cars under the car scheme. Recently there was a heading in one of the newspapers which stated:
"Dick has got 8 horse-power legs—all free."
A man who has been disabled for years is now able to get about, thanks to the Ministry's provision.
Commander Pursey: Under a Labour Government.
Mr. Simmons: I should like to quote from a couple of letters. The first says:
"I would like to record my thanks for the presentation to me today of the Ministry car. It is difficult for one who is not similarly afflicted to realise the tremendous change this will bring about to my whole life and happiness. My wife and I will have a far greater opportunity of pleasure. There will be no need to anxiously consider such things as distances from bus stops and the agony of soreness will not come as a sort of retribution for a day in the country or by the sea."
The other states:
"It is with great pleasure and deep gratitude that I acknowledge the presentation of an 8 h.p. Ford Anglia car for my use. This is the greatest piece of good fortune I have experienced since the loss of a second leg in January, 1939. My wife and I will now be able to enjoy a much fuller life together, and she joins me in appreciation of the practical way in which the Ministry have endeavoured to alleviate my severe disability."
The welfare officers make it their prime duty to help the pensioner in his adjustment to the normal life of the community. Up to the present, approximately 100,000 interviews have taken place, including 17,000 with pensioners in hospitals. Interviews are continuing at the rate of 2,000 a week. These interviews have not been confined to pension matters. A wide range of other matters has been dealt with by the welfare officers. They have maintained close liaison with other Government Departments and with local and voluntary bodies. Their activities have covered social service, insurance, housing, health and employment problems. There is a very close liaison on these matters with the disablement resettlement officers of the Ministry of Labour. I should like to take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour for the splendid co-operation afforded by the staff of his Department. They have given the utmost help in solving these problems.
Welfare officers have visited Remploy factories, vocational training centres and
82
rehabilitation units. When necessary the Minister of Labour has made available his local premises for interviewing where the Ministry of Pensions has no local office. Regular group meetings between welfare officers and managers of employment exchanges and divisional resettlement officers are taking place. There have been 33 such meetings since 1st February, 1949. The experience of the last few months has been most encouraging and we have great hopes of what may be achieved in the course of a longer period by two Departments working together in such close harmony. I think that most hon. Members who have written to my right hon. Friend or myself about the problems of their pensioner constituents will have noted the care that we take to ensure that employment or training is secured wherever it is appropriate, and to satisfy ourselves that the pensioner is aware of the possibilities of help from other social services as well as our own.
The House knows that I can speak with intimate knowledge of these matters. My first experience with the Ministry was just before the end of the 1914–18 war. As an ex-Service man who never rose higher than the rank of private, I was prepared to go into the Ministry with a very keen eye to find fault. I have no doubt that somewhere in the archives the Ministry have a dossier putting me down, as a rather difficult and intractable kind of chap. Probably that would be true, but I add the proviso that the spirit prevailing at the Ministry in those days made one difficult and intractable.
Apart altogether from my personal experience, my short term of office in the Department has convinced me that we are working along the right lines. There is no need for any special inquiry. All the facts are on record in the 23rd Report Additional facts—
Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has said that all the facts are in the Report. He has already added to some extent to those facts by the figures he has given today. Will he give us one more additional figure? Will he give us the latest figure, up to 31st March of this year, of the number of 100 per cent. disablement pensions?
Mr. Simmons: The Minister will reply to the Debate and a question like that could be reserved until then.

83
All the facts are on record in the 23rd Report. Additional facts, as they become known, are placed immediately before the Central Advisory Committee. It meets once a month. It has on it members of war pensions committees of ex-Service organisations and eight Members of this House, drawn from the three parties. A reasonable and proper inquiry is taking place here and now in the form of a Parliamentary Debate. To ask for anything else is to ask for a vote of censure on my right hon. Friend and his administration.
Mr. Bowen: Before he sits down, will the Minister say whether the Central Advisory Committee has been asked for its views about whether an inquiry should be held and, if so, what was the answer?
6.17 p.m.
General Sir George Jeffreys: I rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). I hope that I shall put the case for the appointment of a committee or commission of inquiry with moderation and reasonableness and with no intention whatever of attacking the Minister or the Ministry of Pensions. The general position as to pensions is still not entirely satisfactory, although I would say at once that the attitude of the Minister of Pensions—and perhaps I might say the attitude of the Ministry especially under the former Minister, Mr. Buchanan—has been more sympathetic of late, more helpful and more willing to consider modifications of the system and of the regulations. The appeals procedure has been simplified and made more elastic, but it is not only in that respect that simplification is required. Simplification is needed of the regulations concerning pensions. These have become more and more complicated and involved as one concession after another has been wrung from the Treasury—I put it in that way because that is about what will happen. With it all, the basic rate of disablement pension remains too low. It has never kept pace with the decline in the value of money and the consequent increase in the cost of living.
I should like to refer briefly to some of the points which require attention. First, I would say that the payment of pension and special hardship allowance
84
shoud not be limited to the amount of the 100 per cent. rate. There should be a right of appeal, in this as in other matters, to an independent tribunal against the refusal of hardship allowance. Next, war pensioners ought to receive a similar benefit to that received by other contributors under the National Insurance Act, in view of the fact that they pay a similar contribution. When a married man applies to the Ministry for benefit, the amount of his wife's allowance granted by the Ministry of Pensions is deducted from the standard wife's allowance under the insurance scheme. That, I would submit, should not be the case.
Next, the right of appeal should be given to the 1914–18 men whose pensions claims are refused because they are outside the seven-year time limit; and, in this connection, I would submit that further provision should be made for the consideration on appeal of the cases of pensioners whose wounds, with increasing age, cause them increasing trouble, pain and disability. There are such cases, and I have personal knowledge of them. As men get older, their disabilities are apt to be accentuated and they become more serious, and I think that reconsideration in these cases should be given as freely as possible.
I was very glad to hear the announcement made by the Parliamentary Secretary as to the revision of the regulations for war widows' pensions, and I was particularly glad to hear about the improved allowances, which, in my opinion, by themselves would justify the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Cardigan. It is an indication that there was something which it is now admitted required investigation, and the fact that it has been done is evidence that the matter has been brought to attention by this Amendment. As to the terms of pensions of the widows of the 1914–18 men, they should be brought absolutely into line with those of the wives of men whose death was due to service in the 1939–45 war. While these matters are under consideration, it should be borne in mind that when an officer is killed when owning property exceeding a very few thousands of pounds, the income from which would be very small, Death Duties are deducted from that property. Thus, with one hand, the widow is heavily fined for her loss, and, with the other, she

85
is given a pittance, for it is only a pittance, of a pension by the Government. That matter also requires investigation.
For all these reasons and for others, it is desirable that a Royal Commission, or at least a Select Committee, should be set up to inquire into the whole position regarding war pensions and allowances. I suggest that this Royal Commission or Select Committee should also inquire into the reduction of retired pay and pensions under the provisions of the (Royal Warrant and the corresponding instruments for the other Services of 1919. That retired pay was reduced between 1924 and 1933 by amounts up to 11½ per cent. on account of the alleged fall in the cost of living at that time, and it was absolutely standardised—arbitrarily, I would say—in 1935 at 9½ per cent. below the basic rates of 1919. It has never been raised in conformity with the rise which has followed in the cost of living since—and it is a very big rise now—as was definitely promised in the Royal Warrant and the corresponding instrument of 1919.
Surely, a comprehensive inquiry is necessary into the whole complicated medley of regulations of our pensions system, with all the additions, subtractions and amendments that have been made. Surely, it is also desirable that such an inquiry should be made by an impartial commission or committee, which, I suggest, should be divorced as far as possible from party politics. I am not speaking as a party politician, but as an old soldier with very long service, and I hope that this matter will be inquired into by a commission or committee which is independent of party politics.
The Government would not be committed by appointing such a body, although I admit that if the committee, as I believe it would, were to recommend some considerable changes, the Government would be morally bound to accept them. Surely, the Government are not afraid of the recommendations of an impartial committee? I hope that such a committee, if appointed, will not be a Departmental Committee, because I am afraid there would be objections to that, and there certainly would not be complete confidence in its judgment and recommendations. The recommendations of an impartial committee would carry great weight, and on them, in due
86
course, could be based a simpler, fairer scheme of pensions than any which we have had hitherto. I hope this matter will be considered by the Minister and that he may see his way to agree to the appointment of such a commission or committee to inquire into this whole matter.
6.26 p.m.
Commander Pursey: I rise to oppose, lock, stock and barrel, this Amendment for a Royal Commission to inquire into war pensions and allowances When I came into the House this afternoon, I received a telegram from the British Legion at Hull. This is what it said:
"Commander Pursey, House of Commons London.
This branch British Legion respectfully requests your support for Motion to be moved by Captain Bowen for Select Committee re war pensions.—British Legion, Hull."
They got it wrong, like they always do. This is a proposal for a Royal Commission. The reply I sent back was this:
"British Legion, Hull.
Reply your telegram before Debate, will oppose Motion lock, stock and ruddy barrel.—Commander Pursey."
The puritanical Post Office refused to accept the real word, for which "Pygmalion" is a substitute, and I had to make a compromise on "ruddy."
Now, I must disclose my interest in this subject. I am of the third generation of ex-Service men in my family covering a period of 100 years. My grandfather, as a private, fought in the Crimean War of 1854, was wounded and was invalided out with a pension of sixpence per day, and he lived to a great old age. My father was invalided out of the Navy. I started my career in a naval orphanage, so that, when it comes to the question of what I know about this subject, I suggest that I have got nothing to learn about it, since I have lived with it all my life. Furthermore, as a result of my national campaign against this war pensions delusion—because there is a lot of psycho-neurosis about it—at public meetings and in the Press, I have probably had more letters on this subject from all over Great Britain and Ireland than any other hon. Member in the House.
I had no intention of dealing with the question of the organisations which are supporting this Amendment. I do not

87
wish to get into undue controversy with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, because, unfortunately, he did not know half of his subject. The question of the organisations which are supporting this campaign will not bear investigation. The Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association, the Forces Help Society and the Disability Pensions Committee are not organisations in terms of membership; they are self-appointed charities battening on and cadging from the public. As far as the three main organisations are concerned, the Royal Naval Old Comrades Association have never wholly committed themselves to supporting this complaint, and, to a large extent, their membership oppose it from a political point of view. The Royal Air Force Association is in much the same position. The British Legion is a minority organisation with a membership of, approximately, one million out of a total of 10 million ex-Service men.
Brigadier Peto Brigadier Peto rose—
Commander Pursey: I will give way in a moment, but I am not going to be interrupted in the middle of a sentence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will give way in my own time; I only sought to intervene once during the previous speeches.
The British Legion, as I have said, is a minority organisation and has a membership of only one million out of 10 million ex-Service men, a large number of whom are counted two or three times, as are Members of this House, by virtue of their being members of several branches—I am a Member of three—and a large number are only club members who are not interested in this campaign at all. Moreover, in Labour constituencies, they are in favour of the Government's policy.
Brigadier Peto: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. I was wanting to raise this point before he mentioned the British Legion. He referred to the Disability Pensions Committee battening on the public and cadging for charity. Can he give any instance where the Pensions Committee has asked for charity.
Commander Pursey: Had the hon. and gallant Gentleman not interrupted me he would have found out that I was about to deal with the Disability Pensions Com-
88
mittee. They have no standing in this matter at all.
Brigadier Peto: The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted them as having battened on the public and cadged for charity. Can he substantiate that statement?
Commander Pursey: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to continue my speech, I shall deal with the point. I repeat that the Disability Pensions Committee have no standing in this business whatsoever; they are a self-appointed crowd who might equally be the Ancient Order of Frothblowers.
Brigadier Peto Brigadier Peto rose—
Commander Pursey: I am not going to give way again. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment claimed that this matter has the support of the branches of the British Legion. A large number of its branches do not support it; they disagree with this party political racket and would have taken no action whatever about it but for the fact that they were forced to do so by the Pall Mall circus headed by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). That will do for branches and organisations.
I am quite prepared to be non-controversial. All sides of the House wish to do their best for the disabled and the handicapped; where we differ is as to what is the best plan. The Tory Party, the British Legion, and other private organisations, cashing in on this misery of human lives, a quarter of a century too late, and making a wrong appreciation of the situation, now support what they have always previously opposed, namely, a Select Committee and an increase in pensions. The present Government and the Labour Party contend that the best plan is to grant whatever extra money is available to the hard cases, in particular to those who cannot work and thus earn-an income. We on this side of the House wholeheartedly support that policy.
As regards the proposal for a Royal Commission, all I would say about it is that this is the worst possible moment to have chosen for suggesting it in the whole 30 years of war pensions and disablement, and I will tell the House why.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will answer my own question; I do not want hon. Members opposite to ask "Why,"

89
This is the first year of the greatest social security measures ever introduced in any country in the world. A major inquiry into war pensions and allowances of over one million pensioners, widows and dependants, plus the fact that there are probably another half million who would like to have pensions and cannot get them, must inevitably include an inquiry into hospitalisation, rehabilitation, training, and the employment of all war pensioners. It must also include industrial injuries because these are co-related with the same basic disability pensions and numerous similar allowances. In fact, not only would the Ministry of Pensions factor have to be investigated, but also that of the Ministries of Health, National Insurance and Labour. It just does not make sense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members opposite can answer that point in their own speeches. I say that it does not make sense, and I shall come hack to that again in a moment.
There are two main factors in the present war pensions controversy—the first, wounds pensions, and the second ill-health. As regards wounds pensions, practically all the claims were accepted and settled long ago. Therefore, there is little or no argument on that score. The only thing there is the argument in favour of increasing the amount which, as I shall later show, is not justified on the facts. As regards ill-health, while there is a general argument for increased payments—again not justified—the main argument to get the ill-health attributable to war service. But ill-health is now covered by the National Health Service so the question arises: Why try to get it accepted as attributable to war service? The answer is simply "In order to get the higher amounts allowed for war cases." Therefore, the real crux of this argument of attributability is not a Ministry of Pensions one, but a social service one. The solution is to bring the social service payments up to the level of the war disabilities when there will be no anomalies, no question of attributability, and no complaints. That is the answer.
In their latest statement of claims just issued, the British Legion, after two years of research, argument and campaigning on a scale never before known in this country, can only produce 12 arguments, and most of those are minor ones. For
90
instance, four of them are about widows; I shall leave other hon. Members on this side to deal with them. One is the argument that 35s. for a widow is not sufficient. But that is not an argument for war pensions; that is an argument for social service. How many hon. Members opposite are there today who are prepared to advocate more than 35s. a week for widows in this country? Not one. The point about the widows and the 35s. is just that. Why did the Opposition not advocate a higher sum than 35s. for widows when the National Insurance. Scheme was going through the House?
In fact, the 12 points put forward by the British Legion are not arguments for an inquiry at all; they are arguments why there should not be an inquiry, because they provide the information which, so it is argued, an inquiry should seek. A point which has not registered with the Tory Party or the British Legion is that war pensions is only another name for social security for a limited number of the community. Will any hon. Member opposite dispute that? That is all it is. If the Liberal Party, a Member of which introduced this Amendment this afternoon, had introduced social security and a national health scheme in 1914, there would have been no question of this duplicated scheme for war wounds and ill-health. The war cases would have received the same treatment as those under the National Health Scheme and there would have been no Ministry of Pensions. So, if that argument is carried to its logical conclusion, the British Legion will put the Ministry of Pensions out of business and, of course—as they are doing—they will put themselves out of business, too, although nobody will complain of that. Will the Opposition support the case for the same payments for industrial and civilian injuries and ill-health as for war cases, with some simple supplement for war service? Then we shall get rid of all this duplication, as the Labour Government should get rid of it in time, as they develop the social services.
I will pass to the bones of the war pensions problem—disabilities, basic pensions, employment, the cost of living and the argument about the Select Committee. What is the case for an increase in the basic rate of pensions? In fact what is

91
the case for doubling the basic rate—and I challenge the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale to deny, as he is continually trying to do up and down the country, that the advocacy of the British Legion is to double the basic rate. On 9th July last year the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale drew a sensational and harrowing picture of 750,000 men
"who have been crippled and blinded, and who have lost their health in two wars."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 793.]
Let me be quite frank. This is just plain nonsense and pure theatrical exaggeration, as I will show.
Sir I. Fraser: Would the hon. and gallant Member explain what is wrong in that sentence? Can the hon. and gallant Member explain if the figure is wrong or if there were not people blinded, maimed and crippled?
Commander Pursey: I have no wish to take any advantage of the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale. If he had been listening and if he had waited until I had finished my sentence he would have heard me say, "as I will now go on to show." Let the hon. and gallant Member just wait for it. The figures are common ground, in the "child's bible" or the "child's guide"—the Ministry Report which has already been referred to. Let us consider, first, disabilities. Roughly half the 750,000 are for each of the two wars—half for each war—but as the half from the first war have received 30 years' consideration, largely by Tory Governments, there should be no cause for complaint from there.
Sir I. Fraser: Why not?
Commander Pursey: Let the hon. and gallant Member make it in his own speech. Of the 400,000 pensioners of the second war—and this is the important point of the hon. and gallant Member's exaggeration—less than one-third were suffering from wounds and blindness, and they have practically all been granted adequate, if not liberal, pensions and allowances. The other two-thirds were for diseases, mostly of the chest and so on. That is the main problem of the disabled—not this theatrical story of 750,000 wounded, blinded and so on.
Sir I. Fraser: Wounded, blinded and what?
Commander Pursey: Wounded, blinded and so on. A large number of these cases never saw the enemy. In fact, as a result of being in the Forces those with a low disability were under better conditions than if they had been living in our own blitzed cities.
Dr. Morgan: Is the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) now arguing that a disease of the lungs, whether the man faced the enemy or not—and many do not in modern warfare—is not a very serious disability?
Commander Pursey: If my hon. Friend will wait, I shall deal with those cases. I am stating the facts, which have been grossly exaggerated. Let me repeat, in the second war less than one-third of the pensions were for wounds and blindness. The remaining two-thirds were for other diseases, largely result of pre-Service life but aggravated as a result of war service and, where shown to be such, accepted by the Ministry. Moreover, dealing with the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), 47,000 T.B. cases have been accepted; I fully approve of that and would advocate it. There is no question of my being at cross purposes with the hon. Member for Rochdale or other hon. Members on this side of the House. Less than one-fifth are 50 per cent. disabled, although the loss of four fingers counts as a 50 per cent. disablement. The total number of 100 per cent. disabled is only 52,000, so this figure of 750,000 is a factual figure which gives no actual indication of the disability of the pensioners.
Let us next consider the pensions. Everyone discusses the 100 per cent. basic pension for the private—45s., to which I have no objection—and this again gives an entirely false picture, because no one receives this basic pension alone. This is only the foundation; everyone entitled to this basic sum is either employed or receives additional allowances, such as 30s. unemployability supplement, as well as allowances for his wife and children, family allowances, education, and so on. Moreover—a figure never quoted by the Opposition or the British Legion—nearly 180,000 officers and N.C.O.s—actually 23 per cent.; nearly a quarter—receive additional allowances for their rank. For instance, N.C.O.s receive up to 61s. 8d. and the figures for officers go higher still.

93
An Army captain receives £240 a year, plus allowances for his wife and children and other allowances. Take the case of the man who receives £250. A lot of disabled professional men earn a salary of over £1,000 a year. Is it suggested that their basic pension should be doubled, and that they should go up another £250 a year plus, to bring their income up to £1,500 plus, with over £500, plus allowances, free of Income Tax? It does not make sense.
I will now come to the bottom of the scale, and take the private's case. Here is one of a constituent of mine. He is a first war man, with a leg and an arm missing. He has a wife. He is, therefore, assessed at 100 per cent., and receives £2 5s. basic pension, 10s. for his wife, and 10s. constant attendance allowance—£3 5s. tax-free. He earns a full wage of £5 4s. 8d. a week—and good luck to him—and he gets 5s. Chelsea Hospital pension, making his total weekly income £8 14s. 8d., which is worth more than £9 a week subject to tax. Is it suggested that his basic pension should be doubled? It is just ludicrous. Even this is not the full general picture. Nearly 15,000 pensioners are in hospital, and nearly all receive 100 per cent. pension and allowances for themselves and their wives and their families irrespective of disability.
The question I put to the Opposition and to the British Legion on this is whether all these pensioners, of whom I have given examples—and they run into many thousands—should have their pensions doubled? Should the pensions be brought up, in the case of privates, to £6 10s., in the case of N.C.O.s to £9 16s., and in the case of officers to £500, all plus pension allowances, plus wives' and children's allowances, plus family allowances, education allowances, and the like? That is the proposal of the Tory Party and the British Legion and the other interested parties.
Mr. Baldwin: On a point of Order. What has this to do with the Amendment which has been moved?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The whole Debate has been very wide, and all war pensions questions are relevant.
Mr. Baxter: Further to that point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member
94
is telling the House what our demands are, yet all we are asking for is an inquiry, and therefore it seems to me that his remarks are rather wide.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I say, the whole Debate has been very wide.
Commander Pursey: This problem today cannot be discussed in a vacuum, as though it had been raised today for the first time. There has been one of the worst party political rackets in our lifetime conducted throughout the country for the last two years, and the demands of the British Legion—and that is the organisation which has been quoted here today—are for doubling the basic rate. I challenged its President, the hon. Member for Lonsdale to deny that that is the fact, and he accepted it, so who is the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) to intervene?
Let us consider employment, because that is the main factor here. Give everyone possible a job, and the whole problem will be solved. This is the Government's object, and they have gone a long way towards solving it. The present Minister of Pensions, on 9th July last year, stated that out of 50,000 totally disabled, 40 per cent. were at work, and out of the other 700,000 only 6 per cent. were unemployed. The Minister of Labour on 5th April, stated in a Written Answer:
"The number of disabled ex-Service unemployed on 21st February, 1949, was 40,404. Of these, 35,121 were regarded as capable of work under ordinary conditions, and 5,283 as needing sheltered employment." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 181.]
So the real problem of the disability pensioner is not the problem of the 750,000, but the far smaller problem of 40,000 unemployed who are capable of work, and, in particular, the 5,000-plus who require sheltered employment. Mark you, practically all those 5,000 have the maximum pension and allowances.
What is the history of the argument for a Select Committee? In 1919 the one and only Select Committee was appointed, because war pensions were then a new problem, and there were no social security schemes, and it was necessary to inquire into the facts. That is not so today. We have social security schemes and all the facts are known; the whole position is an open book, and

95
we have 30 years' experience. Previous attempts to obtain a Select Committee have always been defeated by successive Tory Governments. For example, on 20th February, 1923, Major Cohen said in the House:
"As a responsible official of the British Legion…I think it is all wrong that the ex-Service men of this country should be brought into party politics in this manner…The remedy suggested…is that a Select Committee of this House should be set up to go into the whole question. I do not think that is necessary or even desirable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1923; Vol. 160, c. 918–919.]
Mr. Shurmer: He got the wrong Government.
Commander Pursey: Then there was Mr. Rogerson, a Conservative, who said in the same Debate—[Interruption.]
Mr. Shurmer: Let them have it. The Opposition do not like it.
Commander Pursey: Good stuff, is it not? Lap it up.
An Hon. Member: Who wrote all this?
Mr. Shurmer: Hon. Members opposite should not ask silly questions.
Commander Pursey: I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT. Mr. Rogerson said:
"I am a member of the national executive of the British Legion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February. 1923; Vol. 160, c. 950.]
He opposed the setting up of a Select Committee and voted against an increase in pension. The then Minister of Pensions, Major Tryon, said:
"I am sure that unemployment is responsible for a large amount of the heavy pressure which is now placed upon the Pensions Ministry."
Mr. Collins: I wanted to ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether he said the pension was 33s.?
Commander Pursey: I am quite prepared to help anybody on either side of the House, but I think my hon. Friend should allow me to go on or otherwise I shall take up too much time.
Mr. Shurmer: It does not matter—go on.
Commander Pursey: Major Tryon said:
"I am sure that unemployment is responsible for a large amount of the heavy pressure which is now placed upon the Pensions Ministry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1923; Vol. 160, c. 972.]
Today we have full employment. Later he said:
"We have been urged to have an inquiry. Of course, the Amendment cannot be accepted. That was well known by those who put it down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1923; Vol. 160, c. 982.]
A Division was called. Among the 307 Tory supporters who voted against both the Select Committee and an increase in pension, there were half a dozen who are still Members of this House, and who now have their names on the Order Paper asking for a Select Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] Let hon. Members wait for it. I have informed them that I should raise that matter, so that they can have no complaint of my crowning them with British Legion laurels in their absence, for the valiant part which they played for the improvement of ex-Service men's war pensions. First, there was the noble Lord the hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). He was warned of this, and I make this challenge to him that he has deliberately absented himself from the Chamber in order not to reply to the challenge which I am going to make. There were also the hon. Members for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald), West Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), Antrim (Sir W. O'Neill), and the junior Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who, at that time, had not become a displaced person from elsewhere.
Three years later, in 1925, there was a memorial to the Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, for a Select Committee, signed by 249 M.P.s, so there is nothing new in collecting signatures for a Select Committee on war pensions, nor is there anything new in how to deal with them. It is simply a question of who put their names down, and when, and whether it is for the benefit of the pensioners, or a political move, as it is now. At that time the present Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would not provide any more money for war pensions which

97
were then hopelessly inadequate, both in numbers and amount, and a disgrace to this great country for which those ex-Service men had fought in the First World War. In the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th March, 1925, we find that the then Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, stated:
"The Government is not aware of any grounds on which the appointment of a Select Committee…would be justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1925; Vol. 182, c. 599.]
Presumably, the Government of today is in precisely the same position, but someone else will answer for them later. On 26th May, 1925, there was a Debate on the Estimates for the Ministry of Pensions. The Labour Party moved to reduce the vote by £100. In the Division, several of the Tory ex-Service Members voted against their own Government as a mark of disapproval of the existing conditions.
What is of first importance today is that some 40 of the present Tory M.P.s, who now have their names on the Order Paper for a Select Committee, then neither spoke nor voted for either a Select Committee or an increase in pensions, which again, at that time, were disgraceful. Those Members included a number who are now on the Opposition Front Bench; for example, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). In order not to take an undue advantage of him I informed him, so that, as the leader of the gang, he could inform the others, and they could be present in the House to make a defence, if they have any defence to make. The others included the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). I have not attempted to award British Legion laurels to the lesser lights. Did any of them then champion the cause of the ex-Service man and his pension? HANSARD—the great recording angel of all time—records not one.
Not to omit the hon. Member for Lonsdale, I take him separately. It is more important, so far as he is concerned. As the political head of what is supposed to be a non-political organisation, leading and fanning this exaggeration, he himself, who was in the House at that time, said not a word in favour of a Select Committee or increases in
98
pensions and, in spite of other ex-Service Members of the Tory Party having the courage to go into the Lobby against their Government, like a lamb he went into the Lobby with the Government. I appreciate that it is no argument that Members should not change their minds. Obviously, the Tories must do a lot of this. The point, however, is that when there was a very real need to increase war pensions after the First World War, the Tory M.P.s regularly and solidly voted against both a Select Committee and an increase in pensions. Can they, therefore, today expect anyone who knows the facts of this story to treat them seriously on this subject of war pensions?
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order. In order to help us to understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, would you ask him, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to let us know when these questions are intended to be rhetorical and when they are intended to seek information?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that that is not a point of Order. I think that the fewer interruptions the better, because the speech has been going on for quite a long time already.
Commander Pursey: Can they, therefore, today expect anyone to treat them seriously about this subject on war pensions, because quite frankly I cannot? It is simply a case of facing both ways and trying to get the best of both worlds. The House and the country, however, have a right to know why there is this Tory somersault, and why they have double-crossed the ex-Service man? I hope that we shall hear the explanation later this evening from a selected spokesman of the noble band who always opposed a Select Committee and increased pensions between the two wars.
I pass now to the cost-of-living argument which has been raised by the Opposition. In 1919, when the basic pension was fixed at 40s., the cost-of-living index was 215. When the Labour Government increased the basic pension to 45s. in 1946, the index was 203. If the cost of living argument were accepted, either in 1946 or today, the pension would be less than 40s. of 1919 and not the 45s. which it is today; so I hope that I have torpedoed that argument. Moreover, the Tory Party, in 1939, actually reduced the basic pension by 18 per cent., so that the

99
Second World War 100 per cent. disability man received only 32s. 6d., as compared with the First World War man's 40s. for the same injury. This was a most abominable decision. The Second World War man has thus had his pension increased by over 33 per cent.—and there are 400,000 of them; over half the 750,000—not 12½ per cent, as argued by the British Legion and its ill-informed fans.
Another largely fictitious complaint by the British Legion is the number of cases turned down by the appeal tribunals. The answer is that a large number are put up who ought not to be, and who never stand a chance of being accepted. I have with me a report written last year by one of the Legion's headquarters officials, who for some years over a period represented over 2,000 cases on their behalf at tribunals, and he has certainly "spilled the beans" of the British Legion racket. He writes:
"I enclose my summary sheets of cases handled by the Pensions Tribunals. You will observe that most of them are really hopeless cases and were a waste of time and money to bring before the Tribunals. Seventy per cent. of the cases presented by the Legion had no chance of success and were for such complaints as bronchitis, rheumatism, gastritis etc."—
even only slightly exaggerated, if at all—
"The public have been led to imagine that the Legion's Pension Department is fighting for men wounded or crippled by war service and victimised by the wicked Ministry of Pensions. In actual fact, I found such cases very rare, and men who were really wounded or had lost a limb were given every help and consideration in Ministry of Pensions hospitals, which I have myself visited. Their pensions were granted automatically, and in 90 per cent. of the cases there was no complaint"—
and no reason for the British Legion's interference.
"The cases which were sent in by the Legion could be divided as: 30 per cent. genuine, but for complaints not related to war (cancer, epilepsy, etc.); 30 per cent. 'try-ons;' bronchitis and asthma type where the condition had worsened a little and the appellant thought that he might stand a chance of a pension for aggravation; 10 per cent. where the Ministry had not sufficient information…or where there was an element of doubt; 30 per cent. 'mugs,' scroungers and humbugs.
I had three gems which illustrate this latter type:

(1) An appellant was claiming a pension by using his deceased brother's identity. He tried the same thing after the 1914 war.

100

(2) The appellant was claiming a pension for arthritis (V.D.), and whilst in hospital he again became affected.

(3) A psycho-neurotic who claimed a pension for six months' uneventful service. The hardest work he admitted he had to do was to cut the bread and butter for 12 soldiers."

One problem for the Ministry is to get pensioners fully to realise what pensions and allowances they are entitled to. This is particularly true in Tory constituencies, because the majority of letters I receive are from these, after British Legion meetings in places such as Bournemouth, Buxton, and so on, and after statements or letters in the Press and speeches in this House. If Tory M.P.s would make themselves familiar with the pensions and allowances and then go to see their disabled, instead of sending their cases to the British Legion and being led up the garden path by them, they would know the facts and would not have their names on the Order Paper to a Motion calling for a Select Committee, or make speeches arguing for improvements which have already been granted.
I will give examples of cases outside my own constituency. At Southend—and I informed the hon. Member for the constituency that I should be saying this—there is a gunner who was invalided out; he has been ill and unemployed, and was threatened with eviction from his council-requisitioned house. I can refer to this case publicly because the mayor has shouted his head off in a public statement which was largely used to damn the man, and was not in fact evidence. The man wrote to me saying that he could get no one else to help him, not as regards his pension but as regards his house. I took up the case and got the eviction stopped, and got others interested. What did the Ministry of Pensions decide to do? They decided that he ought to go into hospital for treatment. The point here is this. What pension will he receive? He, has the lowest rank with the lowest disability—only 20 per cent.—although, admittedly, he has a wife and three children, which improves his allowances. He will receive £5 9s. 6d. tax-free, plus 10s. family allowances, giving him a total of only 6d. less than £6 a week. That is the worst possible case: the lowest rank and the lowest disability, and what is his disability? Gastric ulcer! The explanation is that everyone who goes into a Ministry of Pensions' hospital gets the maximum basic rate and allowances. Is this another

101
case in which the British Legion and the Opposition wish to double the basic pension, and so give him £12 a week? Obviously it is ludicrous.
There is another case which, by accident, I visited in Essex. After demobilisation the man worked for six months; then thrombosis started, and the question was whether or not it was attributable, but it was accepted. It was first assessed at 40 per cent., shortly afterwards at 80 per cent., and in January last at 100 per cent. His rank is equivalent to corporal, so he receives a small rank supplement; with a wife and two children his pension is £5 9s. 4d. plus 5s. family allowance, a total of £5 14s. 4d. tax-free. But his story does not stop there. I discussed trying to get a constant attendance allowance for him, and he then said, confidentially: "I should tell you that I have been allocated a motor car by the Ministry and an allowance of £45. I have also been trained by Dexmen's Industries to use a loom and make rugs for which I can earn over £5 a week. When I get the car I shall either go up to London to work or work here, so I do not think I can claim a constant attendance allowance." I confided in him that I did not think he could either.
I will now go down to Poole. I am dad to see the hon. and gallant Member for East Dorset (Colonel Wheatley) in his place, because I informed him that I should refer to Poole. Poole is the area headquarters of Dexmen's Industries, and this private firm, run by disabled officers, has trained and equipped with looms and started in employment over 150 disabled men, mostly around Poole. Yet their hon. and gallant Member, so I am informed, has never been to see the workshop or the men at work in their homes. If he had been he would know that there was no reason for him to put his name to a Motion calling for a Select Committee to inquire into war pensions and allowances. I found one old soldier in Poole ill in bed with a collapsed lung. As I always do, I asked his pension; I suggested that he was entitled to more, and told the director what to do. The next thing I heard was that he had been granted another 16s. a week. That is the way to get the information over, by hon. Members opposite learning the book of words, knowing what the allowances are, dealing with their disabled constituents themselves. and putting the facts over. There
102
were other cases in the Poole area which I have not time to quote.
Let me give one example of the spirit of the real disabled man. A soldier who had lost a leg went straight from the Ministry of Pensions hospital to Dexmen's for training. He had been trained. He was working at his loom at home and earning over £1 a day, he said:
"When I get my artificial leg fitted, I shall start up in my own business again, in the boot and shoe trade. I will then return this loom to give some other disabled man a chance of earning a living and being independent."
That is the real spirit of the genuine disabled man, who is satisfied with his assessment and his pension, and whose main object is to have a worthwhile job and be independent of everyone. The scrounger type in which the British Legion specialise, is not typical—
Mr. Renton: Shame.
Mr. Baxter: That is a caddish thing to say.
Commander Pursey: I would repeat it but for the fact that it is already on record in HANSARD—except for a very small minority of the 10,000,000 ex-Service men and women.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I understood the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) to use the word "cad." If so, it should be withdrawn.
Mr. Baxter: I am President of the British Legion in my constituency. I know the quality, the heroism and unselfish patriotism of these men. To hear the hon. and gallant Member speak of my ex-Service men in these terms is to me a contemptible and caddish act on his part.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must withdraw the word "cad" or "caddish." That is an unparliamentary expression which cannot be allowed. I ask him to withdraw.
Mr. Baxter: I cannot withdraw it. I shall withdraw from the House.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to standing Order No. 21 (Disorderly Conduct), ordered Mr. BAXTER to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting; and he withdrew accordingly.
Commander Pursey: Without repeating my speech. I would point out that I gave

103
an analysis by an official of the British Legion of the percentage of the disabled cases, including the scroungers. I am referring to the minimum type of scrounger. I am prepared on any occasion to pay a tribute, as I have done at public meetings, to the British Legion, but it is not a question today of buttering up the British Legion. The majority of the 10,000,000 ex-Service men and women strongly resent the exploitation of the ex-Service man for charity by the British Legion, or for politics by the Tory Party. I have no time to go into the political racket, because that is what it is. I wrote an article six months ago in "The Fleet," entitled "British Legion disability pension campaign facts—no case for Select Committee," which I circulated to all Members. Every argument there has been proved correct, particularly by the Sowerhy by-election where the Tory candidate tried to cash in on this subject and failed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is in his election address and in the "Valley Times," of which I have a copy. It is no good repeating my remarks in response to the parrot cry "Nonsense."
I admit quite frankly that there are some hard cases of ex-Service men, but they are largely the result of ordinary life and not of service, and are a social service problem. No one would fight harder for the bona fide case than I would, but they are few and far between. It is the exceptional hardship case of the unemployed which needs special consideration, and not the comparatively well-off man in full employment. The ex-Service man and his family were never better off, actually, and relatively to the cost of living, than they are today, and what is more the majority freely admit it.
This is an unworthy agitation worked up by the British Legion's well-paid Pall Mall circus and provincial mandarins largely in Tory constituencies. In Labour constituencies the position has been explained and accepted as a fair deal, and resolutions carried of appreciation of the many improvements and in favour of the Government's policy. Moreover, so certain am I that this Government has given the ex-Service man a square deal and done more for him than any other Government—with 50 improvements in four years—that I challenge the hon. Member for Lonsdale, or any other of
104
his Legionnaires, to a public debate in any Tory constituency on my motion, "Is the British Legion redundant and Poppy Day unnecessary?" We can then thresh out this war pension fantasy and delusion and show the ex-Service men and women the true picture.
This is not the type of speech which brings bouquets and headlines in the papers—those will come to Members opposite who give the hard-luck stories. The British Legion Journal next month, as in the past, will publish the names of those who support the Motion, in the worst form of undue political pressure. But I am just as sincere and just as concerned about bona fide disabled ex-Service men as anyone else. I am convinced, however, that it is high time the real facts were known—even "The Times" does not appreciate them—and the country as well as the disabled man ceased being bluffed; because it is sheer bluff by the British Legion in the greatest charity scandal of the century and the worst party political racket of our times.
The sponsors of this Amendment had every right, no matter how misguided, to move the Amendment. Equally so, everyone else who thinks fit has every right to oppose it. Such Amendments enable a subject to be ventilated and, though sometimes taken to a Division, are generally, by leave, withdrawn. We have been told that it is not desired to take this Amendment to a Division, but for my part, whatever the sponsors may wish to do, I hope that tonight this Amendment will be carried to a Division. The time is long overdue when this House and the country as a whole, as well as the ex-Service men, should know exactly where we stand on this important subject. I say to my hon. Friends on this side of the House; cease being bluffed by the chicanery and speciousness of this campaign. There is no case on any point for a Royal Commission, a Select Committee, or an increase in the basic pension. The Government's policy is the right one, namely, full employment for everyone possible and to improve the lot of the few remaining hardship cases. This policy is also in the best interests of the ex-Service man, as I know from considerable experience. For these and other reasons, my hon. Friends should have no hesitation in facing up to their responsibility to the remainder of their constituents and the great majority of

105
the ex-Service men, instead of being led away by a minority movement, and I ask them to go into the Lobby to support the Government in its policy as stated in "Labour Believes in Britain," namely, a "Fair deal for the disabled."
7.30 p.m.
Sir Ian Fraser: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the concessions he has announced on behalf of the Ministry of Pensions. I will, recall them to the minds of Members. First, there was the widows' concession. That is long overdue. It is one of the matters which the British Legion put to the Minister in a deputation a few weeks ago, and which the British Legion has put in similar terms to successive Government's for the past 25 years. I thank the Ministry for having met that point. The other concession is extending the special allowance, called "the hardship allowance," which henceforth will be payable to a few more than in the past. A few thousand men of the First War are able to qualify for this allowance and a very few of the Second War. I do not know the figure, but it is probably between 5.000 to 7,000. Perhaps we can be given the figure at the end of the Debate. These people will get something from 5s. to £1 added to their pensions if they have fallen into a worse job because of their condition than they previously held.
A large number of men are left out of this hardship allowance, namely, those who never had a job and therefore cannot have fallen into a worse one. All the men of the First War are left out, unless they lost the job they had in 1944 instead of 1945—one year's batch, so to speak, will now be able to qualify. The only possible satisfactory solution, apart from raising the basic rate, would have been to extend this hardship allowance so that it became applicable to the overwhelming percentage of ex-Service men of both wars. However, the course which has been taken is something which I welcome, and for which I thank the Ministry.
I shall give the House an example of this type of case. Mr. H. is a farm worker. He suffers from bronchitis and receives a 50 per cent. pension. He is married and receives a pension of £1 7s. 6d. He has been unemployed since 1940. He is not eligible for any of the special allowances, whose value I am the first to praise in their proper place. That is all he gets,
106
and it is his disability of bronchitis which disables him from working and adding to his income: nor is his case met today. I shall do no more today than place on record that the concessions will be studied by us and that I welcome them.
I am speaking for the British Legion tonight and not for any party. I have one observation to make to the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey), and that is to thank him for his courtesy in warning me that he was going to make some reference to me in his speech. I cannot see that there is any particular charge for me to answer, unless it be this: that in 1925, in a Debate on war pensions, when I had been in this House for five months—I was 25 years of age, and I was only a humble member of the British Legion—I voted for the then Conservative Government against a Motion to reduce the Minister's salary by £100. That is the charge which the hon. and gallant Member has made against me. It is a convention in this House to regard a reduction of the Minister's salary, even more than a reduction of the Vote itself, as a vote of confidence and it is, therefore, not surprising to anyone who understands the ways of this House that I so voted. My more senior Conservative friend Major Cohen voted against the Conservative Government on that occasion. If there is a vote tonight—and I noted the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member that there should be—it will be for Members opposite to decide whether they will follow me or Major Sir Brunel Cohen.
The general charge made against Members on this side—and I deal with this not from a party point of view, but because I want it to go on record for all the branches of the British Legion who will read my words—is that the Conservative Party opposed a Select Committee in 1923 or in 1925, or both, and that they are now being inconsistent in proposing such a committee now. Observe that in 1923 and 1925 the Labour Party, by inference and according to my recollection, proposed a Select Committee and voted for it. Today, presumably, they will vote against it—I do not know. Does it not mean that it is the duty of the Opposition, whether Left or Right, to call attention to people's grievances? Does it not mean that that is a recognised part of our political

107
system? Is it not very unnecessary, and quite misleading to people who do not understand these matters, that—
Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Conservative Opposition are now playing politics in this matter?
Sir I. Fraser: I was going to say that there are three possible explanations of the conduct of Parliament, as looked at objectively by persons outside. One is that all Members play politics all the time, and are, accordingly, knaves; the other is that all Members indulge in political action all the time, and are not on that account knaves, because politics is the art of Government and our politics implies Government and Opposition. The third is that some Members do what they do sincerely because they believe in what they are doing at the time when they do it. Right hon. and hon. Members may choose between these three different suggestions, but it need not be assumed that politics is a wicked activity; it is one which most Members in this House are proud to undertake. Why then, when Members take action which they are prepared to stand up and defend, should they be attacked and told that they are indulging in party rackets?
Mr. Blackburn: May I put this point, as one who does not propose to vote for the Government tonight, even though there is a three-line Whip? The hon. Member will remember that when this matter was first mooted, a circular was sent to all Members of Parliament from British Legion branches telling us that our action in this matter would be reported to all members of the British Legion. Surely the hon. Member would deprecate threats of that kind on the part of the British Legion against Members of Parliament.
Sir I. Fraser: It is hard to carry all these things in one's head, but I think the hon. Member is referring to a letter which he had from the Chairman of Austin's Branch, in his own constituency.
Mr. Blackburn: All of us received similar letters.
Sir I. Fraser: In Birmingham?
Mr. Blackburn: No, all Members.
Sir I. Fraser: No. The letters which went out to all Members of Parliament,
108
over which headquarters of the British Legion had any control and which were drafted by headquarters, were prepared in the most carefully worded terms. Persuasion and argument of the mildest and most reasonable kind were used. What may have been done by a branch in Birmingham, in its enthusiasm, I do not know.
Mr. Blackburn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he has very fairly stated that it is the business of an Opposition, whatever Government may be in power, to present legitimate grievances. Obviously it is far easier for members of an Opposition to support those grievances, and, therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman, as he is speaking above party, to say that in those circumstances it is far more embarrassing for hon. Members on this side of the House to support grievances of this kind than it is for hon. Members opposite, and that therefore he should deprecate any statement of any kind to any Member of Parliament—I often think it may be a breach of privilege—that any action he takes is going to be reported to a large section of his electors.
Sir I. Fraser: I am not an expert in the precedents that govern these matters, but I should not think it would be wrong for a Member to hold himself accountable to his constituents, or wrong for a society interested in any particular improvement to publish the names of those who support it. I should have thought that proper. I might add that there is also a point of taste here although I doubt whether it is privilege. Recently when the Legion published the supporters of my Motion for a Select Committee, in its journal, it published the names of those who supported it, but not the names of those Members who did not support it or the names of those who changed their minds.
Before leaving the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull, I should like to say that he raised his voice and became very dramatic about a case in Southend, which he helped by calling attention to the man's needs. He did not tell the House that he publicised this case in one Sunday newspaper and by writing to various people about it, and blamed the Legion for having neglected the man before he had made any inquiries as to whether the Legion had done anything

109
for the man. The Legion had, in fact, helped the man twice when he was in trouble with his rent, and it was the Legion which got him the pension about which the hon. and gallant Member was so proud, and about which he talked.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Commander Pursey: There is no question of a withdrawal. I made up my mind not to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this is a personal charge. What I have done is on public record. The letter I wrote to the paper saying that the pension had been got by the British Legion was not published, but that was not the point I wrote to the paper about. [Laughter.] It is no good hon. Members trying to score by laughing about something that did not arise in the first instance. The problem which arose was the problem of the man being evicted from his house. The British Legion spoke about helping this man over a period of years. If my information is correct once they gave him a few grocery tickets and a few pounds. Over a period of years, therefore, the amount of help was limited to a matter of a few pounds. His pension case went through in the ordinary course, and I make no point about that, but there is nothing for the Legion to crow about as to the help they gave this man out of the millions of pounds they cadge from this country every year.
Sir I. Fraser: I was not crowing; I was only inviting the hon. and gallant Member to find out the facts as to what the Legion has done in this case before publishing the wrong facts. I now publicly invite him to do that. Incidentally, I have asked him to meet me in this House on four occasions, and he thinks that no useful purpose would be served by so doing. In 25 years in this House I have not known of a Member of any party who has felt that no useful purpose would be served by meeting a man who is also interested in the well-being of ex-Service men.
I deplore more than I can say the tone of parts of this Debate, and in the time that remains to me I want to try to get hon. Gentlemen to think about the matter in a different spirit. I want to make two constructive proposals. All down our history we have done a little and then a little more for our ex-Service men who
110
have been disabled in war. At one time we grievously neglected those who were disabled in industry. Then came legislation in the Victorian era, which dealt with disablement in industry by means of workmen's compensation. There was a different system for those disabled in industry.
Then the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Coalition Government conceived the idea of assimilating the method whereby persons hurt in industry are treated to the method which had become familiar and had stood the test of time in dealing with war service men, namely, that compensation should be based upon medical assessment of the injury sustained and should be paid by the State rather than based upon the wages earned and paid by an insurance company. He and I talked this over together and decided that it would be a good thing. The first steps in that direction were taken in the days of the Coalition Government and the scheme was finally implemented in the National Health Insurance Act prepared largely during the Coalition Government and enacted by the Labour Government.
More and more those who have stood out for preference for ex-Service men are coming to realise that with the rising social conscience and rising social services, the time may be approaching when some kind of assimilation, or at any rate reconciliation, between the two systems ought to take place. The trade unions are composed of ex-Service men and non ex-Service men, and they take as much interest in one as in the other. They are a patriotic body of citizens, skilful in bargaining and carrying great influence. The Government of today is based upon their electoral strength and largely financed by them. They have, therefore, enormous political power and during the past two or three years—[Interruption.] I hope I have not said anything controversial. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] During the past two or three years they have obtained great concessions in addition to social security measures, which have a common origin in all parties. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh.
Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member is speaking the truth. I know him.
Sir I. Fraser: The trade unions have obtained enormous benefits for their members in rises in wages during the last three years. Even since the White Paper was published in February, 14 months ago, wages have risen in this country by no less than £90 million. I welcome that rise, but it is quite clear to me from what has been said in trade union circles, that in spite of the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to press expenditure in the consumption field, trade unionists cannot submit to any ceiling being put to wages. On the contrary, they feel that the rises which they have been holding back, though not completely, will inevitably take place and will perhaps be spurred forward by the continued high taxation and the absence of any concession in the Budget.
In fact, the moderate increase in the cost of living which the Budget itself imposes, amounting to some two points, will, in their view—and they have said this publicly and I do not doubt it will be repeated—lead to increases in wages during the coming year. If, as the Chancellor tells us, there is only a limited fund of goods and services out of which any material improvement in our life can come, unless and until we greatly increase our production, it is obvious that someone must hold back a bit, if anything is to be done for our disabled ex-Service men.
I am making an appeal to the trade unions on two grounds. The first is that they make themselves ready in mind to consult with us in the British Legion—
Commander Pursey: We do.
Sir I. Fraser:—as to concerted action which we and they might take in the interests of their ex-Service and other members as well as in the general interests of the community, so that we may invite the Government, through the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of National Insurance, to consider what improvements should be made in the disability pensions and allowances to both the ex-Service categories and the industrial categories. I ask them if they would do that. I should not be unwilling therefore, if the Government chose, instead of accepting this proposal for a Royal Commission, to propose a Select Committee to consider the wider question which I have now raised, to thank them for that, and
112
to regard it as a most valuable alternative suggestion.
The other constructive suggestion I want to make is this: None of us has enough information about the exact position of those ex-Service men and women of the two wars who are in the towns and villages throughout the country. Industry and the trade unions have not enough information about the disabled from industry. I cannot make any suggestion with regard to that matter; it will be for the trade unions to find out the facts. We in the British Legion would be willing to offer to the Government to pay for a survey of all the ex-Service men in the country, by means of sample surveying, provided that the Government will give us the facilities, that is to say the addresses of say 70,000 or 7,000 out of the 700,000. Either a 10 per cent. or a I per cent. survey, provided that the names were chosen under expert advice, would enable us to get a sample showing the position of ex-Service men in various situations. I am not suggesting that the British Legion would undertake the survey or that the Ministry should undertake it, but that we should get some university, Oxford, Cambridge or London, or some other independent impartial body to find out the facts for us. We should be willing to do that, provided that the Ministry will set up some sort of independent committee to study the survey and to advise us here and advise the nation what deduction should be drawn from it.
We know that the Minister has written a letter to every pensioner and that he has appointed welfare officers. Those are useful acts on his part, both actual and psychological. We also know that last year, as was so justly claimed by the Parliamentary Secretary, a supplementary vote was asked for because the unemployability allowance had been increased and other concessions had been made. The changes which have been made during the past 12 months have been quite formidable and have included not only new ideas but great increases in the numbers of those receiving the older allowances. We were told that the attendant allowance which was paid to 5,000 men before, is now paid to 7,000 I am not pretending to give accurate figures but merely to call the attention of the House to the fact of those allowances being received by thousands more persons.

113
I do not think that the diatribes of some hon. Members are justified in regard to the action of the British Legion in this matter. We have advocated these things, and it is indeed a by-product of our campaign that these changes of which we are all so proud have taken place in the last 12 months—not that they wholly satisfy the British Legion, but they at least justify it in the sense that if the changes do good, it is not fair to talk of them as a political racket. Even though I take up just a minute or so more of the time of the House I feel that I ought to defend the British Legion against that charge and to do it publicly. This campaign started in the annual conference of the British Legion. It was not the invention of any of our officials in the head office and least of all of its so-called political president. It was an expression of opinion, to some extent damped down and held in check by us, the leaders, because we realised the difficulties of the country.
It burst out at conference after conference, until at the last conference a resolution was carried, against the advice of the platform, demanding that war pensions be doubled. The claim made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull that that was Legion policy is quite true in that sense, but it was a conference of the Legion of 2,000 delegates from all constituencies, including the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member, that demanded this campaign. When we go to meet our constituents at Whitsun at the next conference, there will be no complaint, I can assure the House, that we have gone too far or that we have taken political action. On the contrary, the complaint will be: "Why have you not demanded this doubling? Why have you asked for a committee to go into the matter? We, the Legion, are convinced that it is overdue." That is the message which the leaders of the Legion will receive, but we shall explain that we want to carry with us both sides of the House and informed opinion in the country and that that is why we have asked for an inquiry.
I shall try briefly to make the case for an inquiry. The history of war pensions is one of demands by the Opposition, whichever party it was, for this and that, and demands by the British Legion and other ex-Service men's organisations for
114
this and that. When the pressure becomes sufficiently severe the Government of the day gives something away. It throws crumbs of comfort to this or that section as soon as the pressure in public opinion or in this House reaches a certain point. That is the experience, and it ought not to surprise politicians. Nor is it a disgraceful thing. It is the way our democratic system works. It is the way it has worked and the way it will work.
I could give the House chapter and verse for all this, but I will not go into it because it is quite well known. However, I will give notable examples. In 1943 there was great dissatisfaction about a number of things. The first was that just before the war the Government had fixed the basic rate for soldiers injured in the new war at a lower rate than that which was being paid to the older men of the First World War. The older men were still getting their £2 plus a certain allowance and the other men were to have 32s. 6d. That was done by the Conservative Government about the time of the outbreak of war. It was not noticed by anybody.
Mr. Wigg: Surely what the hon. Gentleman has just said is not true. The 100 per cent. rate for a Regular soldier had been fixed at 32s. 6d. a week many years before and the Government's action in 1939 in fixing the rate at 32s. 6d. for the disabled men of 1939 to 1945 was merely a logical act of policy to bring them into line with the Regular soldier.
Sir I. Fraser: I was trying to be short. I will now do it the long way and I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied. In 1920 the rate was fixed for the Regular Army. It was lower than the First World War rate. I thought it was a shocking act on the part of the Government which did it, but it was an act which was maintained by two Labour Governments, so if there is a party point it is all square.
Mr. Wigg: No.
Sir I. Fraser: However, I do not make a party point. [Interruption.] No, I do not wish to. That has no relevance. The fixing of rates lower than 40s. was all wrong, and whenever I was in this House or when I had a voice in this matter I opposed it. In 1939 I was not in this House or an official of the Legion. Many

115
of us of all parties in this House got a campaign going in 1943 against the Conservative Minister in the Coalition Government. He was very obdurate indeed. After we had fought him for some time—you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, took an active part in that, although you must now forget that, of course—
Earl Winterton: A lot of us on both sides did so.
Sir I. Fraser: Yes, a lot of us on both sides did so—the rates for the two wars were assimilated, the unemployability allowance was introduced and the emphasis was changed so that whereas before the claimant had to prove his case in certain matters, which was most difficult, thereafter he got the benefit of the doubt. Those were great improvements obtained under pressure. In 1945 we asked for a Select Committee, and the then Minister of Pensions, who is now the Postmaster-General, refused a Select Committee but introduced a good many benefits which were of very great value. He doubled the unemployability allowance, which was important to a few men. He introduced the marriage allowance and the children's allowance for all, which was the most valuable thing he could have done.
It is only fair to observe that the Beveridge Report was already on its way and family allowances as a principle had already been admitted by the House. Hon. Members opposite tend to claim so much in relation to the 40 or 50 concessions which have been made, and it is only fair to note this. Many of them are extremely small and the total bill for them all is very limited, and they do not in any way meet the case which the Legion has been trying to put to the country and the House; and that is why we again ask that the basic rate shall be materially increased or that a Committee shall be set up to look into the matter to see what anomalies there are and to examine the different principles in the war pensions and industrial injuries schemes.
I want to deal briefly with some of the points made against our arguments. First of all, it is asked why, as the Tories voted against a Select Committee in 1923, we are bringing the proposal forward now? The circumstances are quite different.
Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Gentleman has talked about whatever party was in opposition and referred to the Labour Party, when in Opposition between the two wars, on one or two occasions putting forward the question of a committee of inquiry. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that for certain reasons I signed the document. I told a large pensions committee about it last night. I am a member of the pensions committee for Birmingham. Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the circumstances when those committees of inquiry were demanded by the Labour Opposition were that thousands of our ex-Service men were selling matches in the streets and turning barrel organs because they were unemployed, which is not happening today?
Sir I. Fraser: In so far as that unhappy condition related to men who were not war pensioners, and it did—
Mr. Shurmer: They were war pensioners.
Sir I. Fraser: —it is quite irrelevant to the Debate. There are one or two differences. In those days, rightly or wrongly, deflation was in process and we were approaching gold parity, and the result was that prices were falling. Prices are now rising, and there is therefore that difference. There is another difference. There had been the Select Committee of 1919 and 1920 which had produced two Reports, and therefore the nation had, through a Select Committee, examined the whole question of what was its duty to the disabled and how it should fulfil it. It has not done that after this second war. Circumstances alter cases. I hope I have said enough to show that there is no inconsistency in voting for a particular course at one time and voting for an opposite course on what appears to be the same thing, 20 years later. Hon. Members opposite will find out, when they have been in this House for 20 years, that circumstances alter cases. It has been said that the great majority of the disabled are in work, that that is a new factor related to the Government's full employment policy and that because of it we owe these men nothing more.
Mr. Percy Wells: The Minister did not say that.
Sir I. Fraser: That is, in effect, what has been said today.
Mr. Shurmer: No. That is most unfair.
Sir I. Fraser: I did not say that the Minister said it. It has been said from the other side of the House. The argument is said to be—it has been said to be by the Minister in other speeches; he has not spoken yet—that because the majority of the men are in employment there is no need to do anything more for them. That is his main argument against giving an increase to 650,000 disabled men. Full employment amongst disabled men is no new thing, nor is it related in any way to the full employment taking place in the country now. Unemployment amongst disabled men over the past 25 years, come war, come peace, has been round about 10 per cent. It is 8 per cent. today, and the difference between 8 and 10 is the measure of the full employment throughout this country at present. The reason why disabled men are employed is because great efforts were made by voluntary organisations between the wars and now by the Disabled Persons Act—
Dr. Morgan: Passed by a Labour Government.
Sir I. Fraser: —by the Ministry of Labour itself, and by employers and trade unions. They are in work because we take enormous trouble to get them in work, and because they are courageous, self-reliant fellows who want a job. They help themselves and we help them. However, it is no new thing to say they are in work, because they have been in work over the last 30 years. Nevertheless there is increasing unemployment amongst the older ones now, and I estimate that 30 per cent. of all the disabled men of the First World War are now unemployed. I should be glad if the Minister could show any figures which would prove that figure to be too high. I also estimate that of the new war-disabled, 15 per cent. are now unemployed.
There is a problem which wants looking into and which Members of Parliament cannot look into because they have not the time. Nor can we trust any Government to look into it. No Government is to be trusted without outside bodies to challenge it and watch it and without an Opposition to question it, challenge it, and keep it up to scratch. If Governments could be trusted without those spurs, then totalitarian Govern-
118
ments could be trusted, but we have found in this country that no Government can be trusted for long not to take advantage of the people or hide things from them, unless there is a vigilant Opposition, vigilant outside societies and citizens and newspapers to keep it "on the dot." I am not saying anything about this Government as compared with any other. I say no Government can be trusted by the people unless they maintain all these pieces of democratic machinery for keeping it in order.
That is why it is proper and right that we should raise this matter and that the Legion should seek the support of all Members of Parliament without fear or favour, and should take such support as it gets wherever it comes from, from whatever party. Hon. Members who give us their names and their help will be our friends; those who do not, will still be our friends, in the hope that we can win them over to our point of view during the next few months, during the next year, or later on. But because we go out campaigning, explaining our case, hon. Members must not imagine that we are in the least concerned with what party they belong to. Believe me, we are not.
This campaign started with the rank and file as I have said. It was not invented by me or any of us at headquarters. All we have tried to do is to put the case forward fairly. Now we have embarrassed the Government and it has been more embarrassing to the Government when the two Opposition parties and 50 or 60 of the Government's supporters have joined us. But the Government must not be so squeamish about this. I do not blame the Government for putting on a three-line whip. The Government have their own reasons and, so far as they have given them to us, they are not satisfactory. The Government are entitled to their reasons, to their vote, to their three-line whip. I make no complaint. Let the Government not complain because we are going on with the campaign, and because we shall seek support and take it wherever we can find it. We believe that our case is a sound one, that it is our duty as an organisation to put it forward; and we shall not be put off by any talk about party rackets.

119
Just a word about the cost of living, because some false figures have been given today. The real figure, I think I am right in saying, is that the purchasing power of the £ has fallen 15 per cent. in the last three years.
Now I want to deal with some objections that have been made to a Select Committee, so that none of them may carry weight against us. In this House on 29th October last year the Leader of the House gave as a reason for objecting to a Select Committee that we must not lightly override the customary Parliamentary control of finance. He said that as if it were a principle which inhibited the setting up of a Select Committee for such a purpose as this. I just place that on record because I do not know what he meant. I think he must have been saying it in the hope that it would influence people who do not appreciate Parliamentary procedure as he does. It is perfectly clear that we can have a Select Committee, there is no constitutional reason against it. Indeed, we had one in 1919, and, more recently, we had one during the war to decide whether women's legs should be paid for at the same rate as those of men. Both of those committees later involved expenditure, but the expenditure was authorised under Parliamentary control and the principle of Parliamentary control is not in any way prejudiced.
Lord Addison, in another place, answering a Debate on this subject—in which incidentally the Government were defeated—said that the Government could not agree to a Select Committee because of the imputation—that is the only word I shall quote from the noble Lord—of negligence or lack of care on the part of the Government. In our minds there is no imputation of neglect whatever. Neglect would lie in the fact that the Government either did not pay up or did not inquire, but there is no neglect, or imputation of neglect, if they hold this inquiry for which we are asking. I can assure the Government that, far from the British Legion blaming them in any way, we should be delighted if the Government would give us this inquiry. Nor would we look upon that as a censure.
I have also to answer the charge made by various hon. Members opposite that
120
we in the Legion only give half the facts. That is absolutely untrue. In every speech I have made, and it has been published widely in our Journal, I have explained how, during the past years—I have used the words "particularly in the past three years"—the allowances paid to the most seriously disabled have been increased greatly and, in many cases, doubled. I have never hesitated to make that clear. There is no argument from this side of complaint that the Government have not increased greatly the allowances to the severely disabled. Yet the totals which these men receive, except in the case of some 200 or 300 of them. are still a pound or two below the average wage of today. I repeat: the totals which 20,000, 30,000 or 50,000 severely disabled men receive, with all their allowances, are still a pound or two below the average wage of today. Nevertheless, these allowances and amounts of money have been doubled and added to considerably in the past ten years, and especially in the past three years.
It is not therefore particularly a complaint for these men which would justify a national campaign. That is not what we are complaining about. It is almost agreed between us that the circumstances of the most severely disabled can well be met round the table by discussion between us and the Minister. Indeed, I pay tribute to all Ministers of Pensions, including the right hon. Gentleman who is now Postmaster-General, and the present Minister, whom we have met. They are humane, kind and good in dealing with small classes or individuals; they do their very best.
What is between is not really the stuff which Government speakers have been putting up in order to knock us down. What is between us is that 650,000 men and women are being paid only 12½ per cent. more to compensate them for their disability than they were being paid 30 years ago. That is a fact, and it remains an unsatisfied grievance. The pension was not related to their earnings or employment, and it still is not; so that the question whether they are employed or unemployed, well-paid or ill-paid, is quite irrelevant. They were given a sum of money based upon a medical assessment of the eyes or the arm or the handicap which their particular bullet, disease or shell caused them—a handicap in doing, their job and leading their daily lives

121
It is quite irrelevant for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to talk about certain men earning high wages or salaries. I myself—I say this in no boastful spirit—earn a very good living, but that does not relieve me of my disability. It rests with me day and night, but I conquer it and get over it, as do thousands of other people. The pension is not paid in relation to a man's income or to his employment or unemployment; it is paid on a medical assessment of the handicap from which he suffers. That is how it should be. That is how we want it to continue.
Whatever was right 30 years ago, must be wrong now because circumstances have changed so enormously. It is not only the cost of living that has changed—and I challenge the assertion of the hon. and gallant Member that the cost of living has not changed in that time. So much has it changed that the Government themselves have thrown over the old cost-of-living index as being unrepresentative. Therefore, any reference back to the old cost-of-living index is now beyond proof, incapable of proof or of relevance or assimilation to the present-day argument [Interruption.] That is true; that was why it was thrown over. Moreover, the ordinary things of those days are still the ordinary things of today, but the luxuries of those days have become the commonplaces of today; standards of living have changed; the whole world has moved forward towards better standards of living in the past 30 years. Not only in the past three years, but in the past 30 years there have been great changes, and these should be reflected in the makeweight which we give to these people to make up for their disability, just as they are reflected in everybody else's wages and salaries. That is our argument.
Now, about the nation's expense in this matter. In 1947–48 there were 817,000 persons—men, officers and nurses—in receipt of pensions; in the last financial year there were 719,000, so that the number has dropped by about 100,000. The bill has dropped also from £52.8 million in the former year to £49.6 million last year. In view of what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary, however, I think I must add to this sum the supplementary figure of £1,400,000.
Mr. Simmons indicated assent.
Sir I. Fraser: In either case the point I am making is still valid. In the last
122
financial year the bill has dropped by either £2,250,000 or £1,250,000, depending on whether the figure I have given includes the Supplementary Estimate. I do not make much of this except to point out to the nation and to the House that this bill is dropping, because men of the First World War are beginning to get old and to die. Therefore, anything we do in this field is something which fades away with the effluxion of time. It is very important to bear that in mind, because expenditure that goes on for ever, is much harder to bear than expenditure that is for a time only. Let me remark now on the relationship of these charges to our Budget.
Mr. Blackburn: May I very respectfully raise a point of Order, about which I feel very deeply? This is a Debate which will be very closely examined throughout the country and I should like to point out to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with respect, that it is now nearly five hours from the time when the Debate should have started; that we are still on only the fifth speech, and that there is an enormous number of Members who would be anxious to contribute to the Debate. May I ask you whether you would be kind enough to give advice to Members who are addressing the House so that they would consider the fact that there are so many more of us who would like to put our points of view?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): That is not a point of Order. Although the speeches today have been inordinately long, it is not within the power of the Chair to limit them to shorter duration.
Sir I. Fraser: I respect the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I had no idea I had been talking for so long; I was moved by what I said. I shall very gladly try to cut down what I have to say to two or three more sentences.
What will be the cost of the kind of concession which the Legion would like to see result from a Select Committee? It is no good pretending that we want a Select Committee for fun. We want it because we believe our case is just and that it will show itself. To double the war pensions would cost £30 million; to add 50 per cent. would cost £15 million. I just want to give these figures, and then I have finished. In the year 1919 the cost of war pensions represented 3.6 per cent.

123
of the Budget of that year; the year before last it represented 1.65 per cent.; last year, 1.6; next year, according to the Estimate, it will be 1.5 per cent. It is rather interesting that in a Budget which is twice as big as in 1919 we are spending half as much—[Interruption]—on looking after the disabled, and in this instance there are the men of two wars to care for, rather than of one war only. I use these figures only to show that this nation can afford the consequences of any inquiry that may come out of this Debate. I earnestly beg our friends opposite—of whom I know there are many—to do their best to get the Government to yield on this matter, if not now, then during the next year. Nothing could be better for this country and for our politics than that we should take this controversy out of the public political field and put it into a quiet committee room where members in a Select Committee, under the control of a Government majority, could consider it.
I know that the Amendment is for a Royal Commission, but the idea is the same. I personally would, of course, welcome a Royal Commission; the prestige of the inquiry would be enhanced; but a Select Committee will do. In my judgment a Departmental Committee will do, providing it is not an internal committee but is a Departmental Committee of the kind, for example, that the Postmaster-General set up to consider broadcasting. An independent one would do. I defer to the wish of the House to hear other speakers and thank hon. Members for hearing me for so long, and I beg the Government to reconsider their attitude in this matter.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. George Wigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on his non-party speech. He has defended the Conservative Party with very great skill at every point at which it is likely to be attacked. That of course may be purely accidental. I want, however, to take up his first and, I think, perhaps most important point, namely the difference between the position now and as it was after the first war.
The hon. Member, in his efforts to be fair, pointed out that there was a great difference and that it was no charge against hon. Members opposite that in 1923 and 1925 they voted for the Tory
124
Government and that if it was a charge against them the charge would equally he against hon. Members on this side who then voted for a Select Committee and now oppose it. I am going to maintain that there are differences which the hon. Member did not bring out. In 1919 there was a Select Committee which drew up a pension code which resulted in the refusal of 69 per cent. of those who applied for pensions. That is to say of every 100 who applied for a pension as a result of the pension code of 1919, 69 did not get it. This time, in respect of the 1939 war, the Ministery are making awards in about 70 per cent. of the cases. What a contrast. The hon. Member says he wants no Select Committee held behind closed doors. He also says any Committee appointed must be independent. I differ from him.
If there is to be an independent committee I should be quite prepared to have a committee appointed with not one Member of this House nor of the Government. I should be quite satisfied with two officials of the British Legion. If the hon. Member would be prepared to set up a committee composed of Mr. Griffin and Mr. Webb I should be prepared, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) would also be prepared, to pledge ourselves in advance to fight for the attainment of those things they set down in the order of priority in which they set them down. The hon. Member for Lonsdale has gone into the British Legion case at great length and has been very careful time after time to skate round the question of the position of British Legion officials. I hold the view that there is something more in the position of the disabled man than the mere grant of money and so does Mr. Griffin of the British Legion. See what he wrote in the "British Legion Journal" in March, 1948:
"Rehabilitation and re-establishment by training and employment, if you take the long view, are even more important than the flat rate."
He went on to say:
"We must face this pensions problem in a realistic and statesmanlike manner, and gain immediate help for those who need it most.'
That is the policy I believe to be right and that is the policy which I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull believes to be right. He

125
does not carry me with him when he attacks the British Legion in the way he has attacked it. The British Legion, like every human organisation, consists of good and bad people, of silly people and wise people. The British Legion in its 6,000 branches, at head office and in the work done by men like Mr. Griffin and Mr. Webb is doing a magnificent job not only for the disabled man but for the chap who comes out of the Forces and has to settle down in civilian life. I very much regret that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull should have used the words he did which led to the protest of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) but the hon. Member for Wood Green has achieved his object and will get the maximum publicity for his protest. I do not think there is very much between them if the particular remark happened to be rather cheap.
I wish to state the order of priorities which should be taken in connection with pensions. The British Legion have circulated every hon. Member of this House with a list of 12 points which they think should be tackled. They did not give the order of priority, but I shall do it for them. I think the reason why in 1939 the Conservative Government reduced the pension to 32s. 6d. for the Second World War disabled man was because, without protest from the Tory Party, attack after attack was made on the pay and conditions of the Armed Forces of the Crown. They attacked the conditions of men whom discipline prevented from replying. The 32s. 6d. rate for disabled men had existed for many years without any right of appeal. One of the steps which this Government are most to be congratulated is the granting of a right of appeal to the Regular and National Service man who is now disabled. I shall give two actual cases of what happened under Tory rule. While I have been a Member of this House an hon. and gallant Member opposite spoke to me about a young man whose name I shall not give unless I am pressed to give it, who in 1922 incurred a grave disability. For 26 years this man had no pension. He was a nervous wreck and lived on the charity of his friends. He reached the point when life was not worth living. By an odd stroke of fortune I happened to remember the case and to recall that I was orderly sergeant
126
when this chap went sick and therefore I was able to give direct testimony about his case. As a result we had this wrong put right after a period of 26 years. But this kind of thing was quite a common experience for the Regular soldier and sailor.
The second case came to my notice in the last two or three days, not from a constituent of mine, it concerns a man who joined the Royal Navy in 1912 and got his discharge in 1929. He lost a leg and since that time he has lost another leg and has been to Roehampton where he has been fitted with artificial limbs. He pays great tribute to the kindness with which he has been treated, but he goes on to say:
"Whilst I was in Roehampton there were ex-soldiers who lost a leg from the same complaint as myself and they have got pensions. Good luck to them; but why cannot I get one too?"
The reason why he cannot get a pension is because his claim to pension was not considered by the Ministry of Pensions but by the Service Departments and there was no right of appeal. Therefore, I say one of the most important things which can be done by the Minister of Pensions is not only to bring under his control those who will get disablement pensions in the future but those who have already gone into civilian life suffering from disabilities like this fellow and who have no hope at all.
Major Tufton Beamish: Will the hon. Member make it clear whether he is arguing in favour of a Royal Commission to look into anomalies such as those he has mentioned?
Mr. Wigg: I am arguing on behalf of ex-Service men and therefore—
Major Beamish: Which way?
Mr. Wigg: I am arguing in favour of the ex-Service men—
Major Beamish: And against the Amendment?
Mr. Wigg: And against the Amendment.
Major Beamish: I thought that the whole of the hon. Member's argument was in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. Wigg: On the contrary, I am saying that the British Legion have drawn up 12 points which they have circulated, and that if the hon. Member for Lonsdale likes, he could set up his own inquiry inside the British Legion, and so far as I am concerned I would accept the outcome of that, because the people I suggested would draw up a list of things that need to be done in the order in which they needed to be done. Successive Ministers of Pensions since this Government came into power have had to deal with the black reaction of the previous 30 years, and I am now going on to say, if the hon. and gallant Member is not too dense to understand it, that one of the things that is wrong with the pensions Warrant, one of the reasons why Ministers of Pensions have had such an enormous job to do is because of the way in which the hon. and gallant Member's party treated the Regular in between the two wars. I hope that that is clear.
Major Beamish: Perhaps I might assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not too dense to understand it, but if that is true, which I deny, surely it is yet another reason why there should be a Royal Commission?
Mr. Wigg: I do not wish to push this argument too far but I should have thought that even the hon. and gallant Gentleman would appreciate that there is nothing to inquire into, if it is already established what needs to be done. One only inquires, if one has to delve into the question of what needs to be done.
There are at the moment two things which badly need to be done. One is to deal adequately with the position of the Regular and the National Service man, not only those who are to come but those who have been discharged. I have given two examples. I want to give another example. One of the most shocking things the party opposite ever did was to decline to give a pension to the ex-Service man who married after his disablement. They did that, not only because they were looking after the bawbees, the rate of Income Tax and other such matters, but because they had a very poor and a very mean view of human nature. They had such a low view of the womanhood of this country that they thought that if they allowed the ex-Service man on pension to take to himself
128
a wife, crowds of women would marry such fellows in order to get the pension. At the same time, their meanness did not stop there. They refused to grant an allowance for a child if the child was born nine months after the soldier left the Service. Again they thought that the ex-Service man and his wife would have child after child so as to get increased allowances. In other words they saw in the humble people of these islands, the ordinary men and women of these islands, the kind of mean things which they themselves do.
I wish to deal with one of the most tragic cases which I have ever met in my life. If this does not bring a blush to the cheek of hon. Gentlemen opposite all I can say is that they are past praying for. The soldier here concerned, who is now dead, lived in Stoke-on-Trent, not far from my house. He was very badly wounded indeed and was in such a condition that for the rest of his days he had to carry his arm in supports. With great gallantry the girl he had left behind him stuck to him, married him and they took a small shop. Subsequently, four children were born. In 1935 that man died and there was an inquest, the finding of which was that he had died from war wounds; there was no room for excuse or argument about the cause of death. That woman was refused a pension. Although her own health was bad, she had to go on working. Then her eldest daughter joined the W.A.A.F. Unfortunately this poor girl was thrown out of a lorry and broke her spine; and so the poor mother, having brought up a family and looked after her husband in those tragic circumstances, finds herself for the rest of her life looking after her daughter. It is true that the daughter has a 100 per cent. pension. I say that the Minister of Pensions and Members of this House ought to press to undo, or make up to women in that position for, the meanness of the Conservative Party during the last 30 years.
Therefore, I say that there is no case for inquiry. Any man who has studied this problem and who is really concerned with the well being of the ex-Service man and understands how he lives, knows exactly what needs to be done. I am suggesting two lines of action that should be taken and which should be taken as early as, possible.

129
I have gone to great trouble to find out what the attitude of the Conservative Members of Parliament in my part of the world happened to be in between the wars in relation to the British Legion. After a great deal of searching I came across, in the "County Express" a paper which circulates across the southern parts of Staffordshire and Worcestershire, an account of a speech by a former Member of this House who has now retired from politics. He was a distinguished Member of the party opposite. He was addressing the British Legion in 1932, and he was "giving them the works." It is very interesting to note that this was not in 1923 or 1925; this was the Tory Party in the very hey-day of its power. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) grins; he has nothing to grin about; he ought to be ashamed of it.
Mr. George Ward: I shall grin when I like without consulting the hon. Member.
Mr. Wigg: The gentleman to whom I was referring was addressing a British Legion audience. He said:
"If service taught them anything it must have taught them that it was not a case of everyone for himself but of every man pulling together to put the good old country right."
He then went on to say:
"He was distressed at times to see so many people ready to forget the ex-Service men and what they did. He was proud of the fact that ex-Service men showed a wonderful spirit of independence and he rarely found an ex-Service man on the 'cadge.' He bade them to take very great care. He was sure that in times ahead the case of the ex-Service man would be harder than ever. He could not help thinking"—
He was talking about the means test—
"that when those committees were dealing particularly with the cases of ex-Service men, and when they wanted to pay due regard to the fact that the ex-Service man's disability pension should not be reckoned as part of his means they could not do better than take into account and take on to their bodies for advice Members of the British Legion."
That is his English, not mine. His contribution to the well-being of the ex-Service men of Worcestershire was to urge that when they came under the means test, members of the British Legion should serve on the bodies which decided their cases. There is never a word there about increases in pensions, about asking for a bit more. We were in the hey-day
130
of the Conservative Party's triumph. They did not then need to talk about—
Mr. Douglas Marshall: The hon. Member seems to be quoting from a speech in 1932. I wonder if he has forgotten 1929–31?
Mr. Wigg: We are talking about 1932. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) would have appreciated that. He has been in the House long enough to know that in 1932 his party, had they wanted to, could really have done something.
Earl Winterton: The hon. Member has referred to me. We did not do what his miserable party did; we did not produce two million unemployed.
Mr. Wigg: The noble Lord's Party did even better. They produced three million unemployed. If he wishes to debate the question of the unemployed I am prepared to accommodate the noble Lord in his own constituency, but at the present moment we are discussing whether his party tried to help the ex-Service man. I am saying, despite what the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said, that this proposal for a Select Committee is not an honest proposal concerned with the well-being of the ex-Service man. What it is concerned to do is to exploit political prejudice. I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will resist the temptation and realise that they will be best helping the ex-Service man if they go into the Lobby tonight in support of the Government, thereby endorsing what has been done and saying to the Government, "Go even faster; the faster you go the better we shall be pleased."
8.52 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Time is passing and may I, for the sake of brevity, say that I support the suggestion that a Select Committee, or some form of inquiry, should be set up, if only for the purpose of satisfying public opinion. If they are satisfied that everything is perfect with our pensions system, I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and other hon. Members who have spoken from the opposite side of the House should be scared of any such inquiry. If it said that it is unnecessary,

131
there are several inquiries, set up by the Government, going on in this country today which a good many of us think are unnecessary.
I will give briefly one of the reasons why I should like to see such an inquiry set up. It has to do with the question of the basic rate of a disability pension. Today it is very hard to say exactly what is represented by this 45s. 100 per cent. basic rate of pension. As those who know about these things are aware, it was fixed as a result of the Select Committee in 1919. There is no question that at that time it was meant to be related to the wage of an agricultural worker or a general labourer. It was meant to be roughly equivalent to what was then considered to be a living wage. As the House knows it was raised to 45s. to bring it into alignment with the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act.
No one claims today that 45s. is a living wage, and it is bolstered up by a fairly elaborate, and in many respects a generous, system of allowances and supplementary allowances. Recently there has been a demand that there should be some increase in the basic rate of pension. I have always found it very difficult to support that claim, because I cannot see what the basic rate of pension is meant to represent. Unless one clearly knows what it is meant to represent, it is difficult to argue whether it is too high or too low. No one claims that it is a living wage and it is not in any way tied to the cost of living. In fact, it is just a figure in the air which has to be considered with the very elaborate and complicated system which has been built up under our pensions system. Some good could come out of an' inquiry to decide whether that basic rate should or should not be tied to something in future, so that we can see whether it is al a proper level.
I pass from that to one or two other questions about which hope further inquiry will be made either by the Ministry of Pensions or some independent committee. Most of these points are old chestnuts to the Minister, but they may not be known by all hon. Members. There is the question of what is usually known as the 100 per cent. plus—that is, a bit extra for the man suffering from multiple injuries. The 100 per cent. rate roughly covers a man who has suffered
132
the loss of any two limbs, a foot and a hand or a double amputation of the legs or arms. Unfortunately, there are many pensioners who have suffered even more grievous injuries than the loss of two limbs. It is interesting to note, as I think the Minister will agree, that the 100 per cent. award covers a wider range of injuries than the whole scale between 20 per cent. and 100 per cent. With the most meticulous care the Ministry assess a man up to 100 per cent. In the case of a limbless man they do it to the nearest inch of the stump. Once they get to 100 per cent., they throw up the sponge altogether and say that it is impossible or too difficult to assess above that level.
A case was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) of a man who could have been awarded either an 80 per cent., a 70 per cent. or a 60 per cent. disability pension for three different injuries. I would only repeat that the 100 per cent. pension covers a wider scale of injuries than the range between 20 per cent. and 100 per cent. I would also inform the House that in New Zealand, South Africa and America it has been found possible to go above our 100 per cent. in making assessments. The Ministry say that it cannot be done, but if it can be done in these other countries, I feel that if the will were present it could be done here. That is one of the matters into which a Select Committee could inquire.
Another question is that of an increasing pension with advancing age. Sixty-eight per cent. of our pensioners are what are known as ailment cases. I recognise that in the last few years, especially since the apppointment of welfare officers, a more sympathetic hearing is given when applications are made for pensions to be upgraded. There is no difficulty with a man suffering from an ailment being put into a higher category as he becomes older. But that is not the case with the limbless man. The older a man gets, his stump never gets shorter. Therefore, he always remains on the same basis. I do not need to tell any hon. Member that it is an effort and a strain for a man to cart around all his life an artificial limb or, sometimes, two artificial limbs. One need only see a double amputee who is getting older to realise that the limbs he has had to carry around have done his health no good. There seems to be a case for some

133
form of automatic up-grading of the limbless man or the double amputee as he grows older. That has been done in Canada.
The hon. Member for Dudley spoke about widows' pensions. I only hope that he will support pensions being paid to the pre-1939 widows. That is a fairly big subject, and I do not wish to go into it now; but I should like to ask the Minister one question. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a Question on 22nd February, said that pensions had been awarded to one-third of the widows of pensioners who had died in the last five years. Again, it would be interesting to know what percentage of these pensioners were in fact limbless. It is comparatively easy for the widow of a man drawing an ailment pension to prove that he had died as a result of that ailment, but it is extremely hard for a widow to prove that a limbless pensioner died from the fact that he had lost his limbs, although, in point of fact, that may be the case. Anyone who has seen a double amputee knows that these people do get rather fat owing to the fact that they cannot engage in normal activities, and that it must affect the heart to some extent.
I hope the Minister can make a concession in this particular case. The gap has been narrowed by the introduction of the National Insurance scheme, but now the 100 per cent. pensioner is excluded from that scheme, and his widow cannot draw if her husband was receiving the 100 per cent. disability pension. I think that a case could be made out that where a pensioner, owing to his disablement, is excluded from the terms of the National Insurance scheme, his widow should automatically draw the pension when her husband dies.
There is one other question which I think might well be included for consideration either by the Select Committee or the Minister, and that is where it is not possible to give a rent allowance to a man drawing the unemployability supplement. If one is receiving 30s. a week, there is a great deal of difference between paying 26s. for a council house or a few shillings a week for a cottage. This has been admitted in the case of the widow's pension, and there is a widow's allowance which can be drawn along with the unemployability allowance. I hope
134
the Minister will see his way to have an inquiry into the whole complicated system of our pensions scheme, but that, if he does not have an inquiry, he will at least give consideration to the points which I have made.
9.3 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: In this Debate a great deal of heat was very quickly developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said that we should try in the course of the Debate to avoid partisan points, and I think he tried to do so, although for the greater part of his speech he was subject to constant interruptions. I thought myself that the Parliamentary Secretary struck a truculent note when he referred to the demand for an inquiry as being partisan politics. We are indebted to the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) for his wise speech, which I think cooled the atmosphere in the House. I shall myself try to be moderate in what I have. to say.
In my opinion, the case for an inquiry has been made out by the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). That case is for an inquiry over a very wide field, and I think there are at least four arguments why an inquiry into the scale and administration of war disability pensions should be instituted. My first reason is this. The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull made a very interesting suggestion, which was followed by the hon. Member for Lonsdale, when he said that the time had come or was approaching when we should integrate the war pension system with the scheme of National Insurance. That is a valuable suggestion. After all, we have moved forward a great deal since the time when these war pensions were first instituted. I pay my tribute to the Government for the steps they have taken in the direction of social security in which they have had our blessing and all our support—for we were pioneers. I think there is now a case for the merging of the two schemes.
We should look again at the question of what war pensions are really designed to cover because we have accepted the principle of the State being responsible for unfortunate people who are not able to fend for themselves. Of course, war pensions are more than that. The Par-

135
liamentary Secretary said that a war pension is a monetary compensation for loss of function due to war injury. I am not sure that there is not now a case for merging the two Ministries. I think that the administrative side of both Ministries would benefit by such merging, and that if we are to advance towards a really comprehensive scheme of social security in which the State accepts liability for all this suffering and for the maintenance of the sufferers, that kind of integration is necessary. The hon. Member for Lonsdale also contemplated this. An inquiry into this matter would be a real contribution to good Government and to progressive administration.
The second reason for an inquiry which I deduced from the two speeches I have mentioned is this. Very serious allegations have been made against the British Legion. I am not sure whether these reflections are meant to be cast—
Mr. Willis: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about the integration of the two Ministries and the bringing about of one comprehensive scheme of social insurance, does he not agree that the setting up of a commission to give special facilities or special advantages to ex-Service men which industrial employees would not get, would actually conflict with the aim he has in view?
Mr. Roberts: That would be so if the commission were set up for the express purpose of ensuring special advantage to the ex-Service man, but that is not what is intended. By putting his query in that form, the hon. Member admits the validity of the argument which I am putting forward.
To come back to the second point, I was saying that very serious allegations have been made against the British Legion, and I am not sure whether they are intended as a reflection on other associations of ex-Service men. They are allegations of a very sweeping character. The hon. and gallant Member made the British Legion out to be a puppet of the Tory Party; he said that it specialised in the scrounger type of ex-Service man, and that it was sponsoring one of the worst political rackets of our time. A body with which so many ex-Service men get into intimate contact, which has branches
136
all over the country, which advises them, whether rightly or wrongly and one to which so many of them turn for guidance and advice in matters which so closely affect their material security should not be subject to charges of that description unless they are fully investigated and are proved or disproved. Therefore, there is not only a case for an inquiry into war pensions, but for an inquiry into the administration of and the way in which claims are pressed by such bodies as the British Legion.
From my own perhaps limited experience, I entirely refute what the hon. and gallant Member said. There are many branches of the British Legion in my constituency, some of them very vigorous, and from my acquaintance with them I should say that they are very far indeed from being puppets of the Conservative Party. In fact, in many of the most vigorous branches, in my opinion—and, of course, I have not asked the people for their political opinions but I have some reason to believe this to be true—many of the rank and file are members of the party opposite, and it is they who are most insistent in this demand for an inquiry into the whole system of war pensions.
The third point which emerges from the two speeches is this. The hon. and gallant Member for East Hull said in the concluding part of his speech—maybe it was what he would have called "a theatrical exaggeration" but these were his words—that it was high time the real facts were known. He said that even "The Times" did not know the real facts and that it was time people ceased to be bluffed. If one wants to "debunk" anything, an impartial inquiry is the best way to do it, and if "The Times" is being bluffed, perhaps a Royal Commission is the only agency which can convey the truth to "The Times."
That kind of argument admits that the public do not know the real facts of this rather complex scheme of pensions, and therefore I say it is our duty to do all we can for those who suffered these injuries while coming to the aid of their country in time of mortal peril and it is our duty to show the country what is actually being done and see whether more can be done. On the point of information alone, on the arguments used by hon. Members opposite

137
there is a strong case for an impartial inquiry and an inquiry on the highest level—that of a Royal Commission.
The fourth argument which I would put forward follows particularly from the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley. He admitted the case for an inquiry, he quoted anomalies in the present system and he said he would be prepared to see set up an inquiry by two officials of the British Legion itself. That is a most ludicrous proposal. Would it really satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull? The kind of inquiry we want now is an inquiry which will convince the public opinion of this country. If one wants to uncover the malign administration of past Conservative Governments—and I have no reason at all to argue against its being uncovered—could the British Legion inquiry do it? On that ground, too, an impartial inquiry is necessary.
I would gladly admit and gladly praise the real advancement made by the present Government even in this field of war pensions. The letter by the Minister to all pensioners about claims, and improvements such as the provision of a car for the disabled, are indications, and I should like in particular to pay my tribute to the new spirit brought into the Ministry by Mr. George Buchanan when he was Minister for Pensions. I think the present Minister has continued the administration in that spirit. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking from that Box, said that the Government made this a vote of confidence or a vote of censure. If there was anything which made this Debate a hostile affair and introduced controversy into it, it was a gesture of that kind. I say, let us all consider the case on the merits and the merits alone.
Even apart from what hon. Members opposite have said and the arguments to which I have referred, there are grounds on the merits in the war pensions system itself to make a public inquiry essential. To attack Conservative Governments of the past—and I say this as one whose favourite pastime is attacking the administration of Conservative Governments of the past—is merely to tilt at windmills in this debate. Among the points that should be investigated is the question whether the basic pension of
138
45s. should be increased. The Minister admitted that 52,000 people are now receiving the basic pension for 100 per cent. disability. Another question is, Is it really satisfactory that a war widow without children should receive only 35s. a week and no rent allowance? If I am told that that is the rate under National Insurance, I say that that is no answer at all. Again, why cannot the position of the widow of the 1914–18 war be made as good as the position of the widow of the last war?
Other matters for inquiry are rights of appeal against rejection of claims for hardship allowances and against the refusal of unemployability supplementary payments. There is another thing I should like to see investigated. I have never understood why the rate of pension given to a man, or to his widow or to his family, should depend on the rank he held in the Army. I think that that is a distinction that should have been swept away a long time ago, and that the pension should be given according to the merits of the individual case. I see nothing that can be lost by an inquiry. I propose to look at the question solely on its merits. I hope the House will vote on the question, and that in judging of its merits the House will decide for an inquiry. That is the least we can do.
9.17 p.m.
Earl Winterton: I should like at the outset to thank the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) who has had made such an admirable contribution to our Debate, for his great courtesy in allowing me to make the winding-up speech from this side of the House, instead of availing himself of the opportunity he had of winding up, since the Amendment is a Liberal Party Amendment. I should like to express my gratitude to him and to his colleagues for this. I may say in passing, as a member of one of the oldest "trade unions," namely that of Front Benchers and Privy Councillors, that it cannot be complained that we have taken an undue amount of time in the Debate, because I think I am the first Privy Councillor to speak, and that the average length of the speeches of back benchers has been 52 minutes. Not that we complain about that, but I have only a few minutes to speak before the Minister of Pensions gets up.

139
Despite some appearances to the contrary—and that is to put it in a somewhat mild form—in this Debate this question of war pensions and the administration of the Ministry of Pensions is, as it ought to be, a non-party political question, and I cannot think that a request for an inquiry—a Royal Commission—into the present position of pensions in any way derogates from that. There is nothing new about it. As hon. Gentlemen have pointed out, and as they are quite entitled to point out, there was a similar Amendment directed to or against—whichever phrase hon. Gentlemen like to use—the Government of the day in 1923, and on which a number still in the House—I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I—supported the Government, as we were bound to do as Members of the Government, and for which a number of hon. Gentlemen still in the House—I think at least two on the Treasury Bench—voted. If we on this side are charged with inconsistency, then it is equally inconsistent for those right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and others who supported the Amendment for the Royal Commission then, when there were no less grievances felt by the British Legion and ex-Service men than there are today, to resist this Amendment now. If we are charged with inconsistency, then there is inconsistency on both sides.
What I should like to address myself to in the short time I have to address the House, is the question, What are the reasons which have been urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite against the inquiry? We have had a number of speeches, some of them of a very violent character, from the benches opposite. For example, there was the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) who, as the hon. Member for Merioneth said, made one or two most wounding observations about the British Legion. He said the British Legion "looks after scroungers," and went on to make other injurious charges about it. The hon. Gentleman must be a very brave man. Either he is not going to stand for East Hull at the next Election or, if he is going to stand, he is a very brave man to incur the ill-feeling by his attack upon them, of millions of ex-Service men throughout the country. I congratulate him upon his bravery. If he thinks that the British
140
Legion, composed of millions of people of all parties and no party, is an organisation to look after scroungers he is entitled to say so in this House. As a member of the British Legion, I repudiate that entirely. I think that what he says is completely untrue, and one of the most offensive things I have ever heard said in this House about a non-party organisation of ex-Service men.
Commander Pursey: I did the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy of writing to him to say that I was going to deal with these matters. He was not in the House while I was speaking to hear anything that I said. I am not disputing what I said. I do not ask for any privilege here. I have said these things on public platforms, and there is no question about it at all, that the British Legion is a minority organisation and does not represent the maximum number of ex-Service men and women in the country.
Earl Winterton: I am very interested in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's fourth speech today. I heard the first quarter of an hour of his main speech and then went out to get some food, but I was back in time to hear the last ten minutes of it. I am quoting what he said as told me by a number of people. His interruption is wholly irrelevant. He thinks that I am sarcastic. On the contrary, I was paying him a sincere tribute by saying that he is a very brave man, and that I refute his statement and regard it as wholly offensive. I hope that will go on record, too.
I should like to turn to a less controversial speech which was made by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that he did not mean to give the impression—and the Minister of Pensions will correct it if he did give the impression—that the very fine system which we have in this country for looking after the pensioners of both world wars is in any sense a party matter. The references which he made to Roehampton and other places seem to give the impression that this was something quite new which had not been done by previous Governments. I should like to say that it has been done by all Governments. I go further and congratulate him—which may seem an odd thing for someone as aggressive as I usually am—on the improvements which he has made, like his immediate predecessor and others before him, in the system. We

141
have had an exceptionally good lot of Ministers of Pensions. Those of us in Opposition have often been critical of them. I have often been critical of the Minister of Pensions belonging to my own side. I was critical of some of the things which my right hon. Friend, who is no longer in the House, did when Minister of Pensions in the Coalition Government.
I appeal to the Minister, when he winds up for the Government, to emphasise the fact that this question of war pensions is not and should not be a party question. The only point at issue tonight is whether or not the request which has been made to the Government, not merely by hon. Members on this side of the House but by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and by at least 60 hon. Members opposite, that there should be some form of inquiry, of which a Royal Commission is thought to be the best, into the present position of pensioners is or is not justified. That is the only question at issue tonight.
In that connection I should like to refer to one or two points, in the brief time at my disposal, made by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). He made one of the most eloquent speeches on the subject of pensions that I have ever heard in this House. In view of his disability it was a remarkable physical effort. He stated two facts which have not been answered by any hon. Gentlemen opposite who have resisted the demand for an inquiry. I understood him to say that on the whole—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—men with total disability pensions are receiving only 12½ per cent. more than they did 10 years ago and that, speaking generally total disability pensions were still £1 or £2 less than wages. That is one of the things into which a Royal Commission would inquire.
I put this last point not from a party point of view but very earnestly to hon. Gentlemen opposite who originally agreed with us on this side of the House that there should be a Royal Commission. We have this basic rate. One Government after another has added to it. I fully admit that this Government has added to it. The mere fact that there have been all these additions from time to time, largely, let it be remembered, as a result of the campaign which has been carried on by the British Legion
142
and other bodies interested in the welfare of ex-Service men, seems to make the need for some form of impartial inquiry greater than it would otherwise be. The answer of an impartial person would be that if it had not been for the points put by the British Legion this and other Governments would never have made the improvements they did.
Mr. Scollan: No.
Earl Winterton: That is a perfectly fair inference. I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that it is not. All bodies, trades unions or whatever they are, concerned with the interests of a particular body of people are entitled to claim credit when they have put forward their views in favour of improvements in conditions if those views are accepted by the Government.
Mr. Scollan: Apart from the efforts of the British Legion, successive Labour Party Conferences since the 1914–18 war have pledged themselves to bring the pensions up to a humane level without, any urging from the British Legion.
Earl Winterton: That may be so, and all the more credit to them for having done so. However, the hon. Gentleman will not persuade this House as a whole nor will he persuade his constituents that the British Legion is not a very important factor in this case and despite the wounding remark his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull made about it, I would say that the British Legion still remains the best association of ex-Service men in this or any other country.
It is not only the British Legion which makes this demand. There is a great number of other bodies, as is shown in the statement issued by the Legion. There is the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, the Disability Pensions Committee, the Forces' Help Society, the Lord Roberts Workshop, the Officers' Association, the Old Contemptibles Association and a number of other bodies including the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Family Association. Surely, the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull does not suggest that all these people are playing a political game and that every one of them has been influenced by the Tory Party. Of course no responsible hon. Gentleman opposite holds any such view.

143
Only a few extremists hold that view. The arguments in favour of an inquiry are overwhelming and I cannot understand why the Government refuse it. If they have a good case why should it not be put to the Royal Commission?
In sitting down I want to make these concluding remarks. I do not know if they will be accepted even by all my hon. and right hon. Friends because, as I said, this is not a party matter. However, I hold very strongly, and have done ever since the 1914–18 war, that pensions arising from death or disability in the Armed Forces of the Crown should be higher and better than those paid for similar misfortunes in any industry, however hazardous or however meritorious, including, for example, coalmining. In other words, the Service man injured in the course of his profession should receive greater compensation than that of anybody in any other form of occupation. It may be an old-fashioned, out-of-date, true-blue Tory view, but it is held by millions of ex-Service men throughout the country, quite irrespective of their political opinions, and it is the view which, through the agency of the Legion, is being pressed upon this House.
I would say this—and this is truly my last sentence and I hope this will appeal to the Minister of Pensions because it is a point that has not been brought out in this Debate—that it must be remembered that today thousands of young men are being enlisted compulsorily in the Armed Forces of the Crown. The situation is different from that in the old days of the voluntary Army, Navy and Air Force. They were often badly treated, but they went in of their own free will. They had to put up with the pay and conditions, including pensions because enlistment was a voluntary act on their part to join the Forces. Today they are being compulsorily enlisted, and it is the duty of this House and of this Government to pay them or their relatives and dependants compensation either for death or any form of injury higher than that which anybody would receive in civilian life. That is so because there is nothing comparable to service in the Armed Forces of the Crown.
For all those reasons, and with my apologies to the House for rather desultory remarks because they had to be put into a short compass, I hope the right
144
hon. Gentleman will agree to this inquiry and will not treat it, as it should not be treated, as a party political matter.
9.31 p.m.
The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): I am glad that we have had this Debate today, and I cannot complain about anything that was said during the course of it. Some heat was engendered, I know, but none of it was directed against me. There was no accusation of harshness, no accusation of want of sympathy. One or two individual cases which were quoted were cases which had not been sent to me; they were not cases which I had turned down through lack of consideration or sympathy. In saying that, I must thank the hon. Members for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) for what they said about my administration. If there had been a burning sense of grievance outside this House, then we would have had a Debate of a very different character from that which we have had today.
Some of the points raised in the Debate, especially those mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) and the noble Lord the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) were points which had been put to me already by a deputation from the main ex-Service organisations. I propose to reply to those points to the deputation in detail, and I will make copies available through the usual channels so that hon. Members who wish to see my detailed reply to those points will have an opportunity to do so, and to study them. It would take too long tonight to go through each of those in detail, and in any case that is not what this Debate is about. The Debate is about whether or not there should be a Royal Commission. I will also, where new points have been raised tonight, consider them carefully, as I always do, and discuss them with my Central Advisory Committee.
However, two of the points which were listed in the 14 placed before me by the deputation, and which have been listed again in the 12 circulated by the British Legion to hon. Members before this Debate, have already been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the two improvements which he has already announced this afternoon. I say "improvements" because I hope

145
that word can be commonly used instead of the word "concessions." I do not regard the improvements which I and my predecessors have been able to make in the war pensions code as concessions wrung out of an unwilling Government by outside pressure.
Before passing to my next remarks I hasten to say to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that, of course, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did not wish to suggest in any way that the administration of the Ministry of Pensions hospitals was in the slightest degree varied according to whichever party was in office. Of course, the hospitals are run by the doctors—the professional men—to the maximum degree of their great skill, and Roehampton was as good a place as it could be under Sir Walter Womersley or under any previous Minister as it is today; there is no doubt about that.
Referring to the suggestion that every improvement which is made is a concession, I resented the remark by the hon. Member for Lonsdale that all these improvements were a by-product of British Legion agitation; that the Government from time to time threw out crumbs of comfort, as he called them, in response to agitation and pressure from outside. If these improvements which have been made in the last four years are a by-product of anything at all, they are a by-product of the pamphlet "Let us Face the Future" and the promise therein contained. If it is party politics to claim credit for what the Government have done, then I plead guilty to being a party politician and I am not ashamed of it. Before I pass from the remarks of the hon. Member for Lonsdale, I should like to refer to the case which he quoted.
Sir I. Fraser: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he allow me to remark that my observation that things have to be wrung from Governments was not directed against this Government in particular but against all Governments?
Mr. Marquand: I was about to mention in passing, because I thought it deserved mention, the individual case which the hon. Member quoted in the course of his speech. It struck me as extraordinary that the man to whom he alluded should not be drawing sickness benefit. Surely,
146
the man whose case he described must be entitled to sickness benefit and must be drawing it; if not, then no doubt the case deserves to be looked into. If I am right, and that man is entitled to sickness benefit, the hon. Member for Lonsdale is guilty, as hon. Members opposite are guilty all the time, of forgetting that our present system of war pensions is operated against a background of vastly improved general social services. They will talk all the time as if things now were the same as they were in 1919 and in 1920, when the war pensions code was first introduced and when the present system of social services did not exist; when old age pensions were five shillings a week, subject to a means test; when large masses of industrial workers were not entitled to unemployment insurance at all; when sickness benefit carried no benefits for dependants, and so on. I need not go on describing the differences. Do not let us forget all this. It was an important part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and is a very important part of the whole situation. Do not let us talk as if the income of war pensioners consisted only of their war pension; it does not, as we have proved up to the hilt this afternoon.
I must refer also to the question by the hon. Member for Lonsdale about the new Royal Warrant. He referred to the White Paper "Changes in War Pensions" (Command 6459), which was presented to the House by Sir Walter Womersley. It was laid in draft before the House but was presented by the Minister to Parliament by command of His Majesty. The position in regard to the new Royal Warrant will be the same as with Royal Warrants in the past. I cannot make any change, nor can the Government undertake to make any change, in the provisions which apply in respect of the Royal Prerogative. I had it in mind to quote what they were, but, as time is getting on, I will not do it. I refer those interested to a statement made on 26th January, 1943, in reply to a similar question put at that time by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). It explains clearly why the Royal Warrant cannot be discussed in the House or laid in draft before the House. What goes into the Royal Warrant this time is well known to the House and has been discussed in this

147
Debate and, confidentially, certain things which are going into it have been discussed by my Central Advisory Committee and I have had the benefit of their advice upon it.
I ought to say something about the position of war widows, which has been referred to more than once during the Debate. I know only too well from personal experience what hardship a widow and her children can suffer. I am not lacking one whit in the deepest possible sympathy for people in this position. But the House must recognise, and the Government are bound to remind the House, that already there is a differential of 9s. a week between what is paid to the war widow and what is paid to the widow who receives her pension under the social insurance scheme. We do not feel that at present we can increase that differential.
Therefore, there can be no increase in the basic rate of war widows' pensions, which we have now made universally 35s., as announced this afternoon, until the country is in a position to afford an increase in the 26s. rate which applies to widows who are not war widows. It is very important to remember, as the noble Lord the Member for Rutland and Stamford reminded us, that many widows of pensioners fail to qualify for the war widows' pension because their husbands did not die of their war injuries. I must again remind the House that, fortunately, now this system of pensions is only part of our new system of social security. Where the basic rate of pension is insufficient to keep body and soul together, or rather enable a decent life to be carried on, or where the widow fails to qualify, there stands in reserve the national system of an insurance which provides the 26s. a week widow's pension and behind that again the National Assistance Board. The Supplementary Estimates for the—
Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a man who has a 100 per cent. disability is excluded from the ordinary social services and the widow is excluded from drawing a pension because her husband was 100 per cent. disabled?
Mr. Marquand: That may well be so, if her husband was unable to obtain work
148
and be insured but she still has the Assistance Board. The Supplementary Estimates for the National Assistance Board were discussed in this House a short time ago and there was a perfect paean of praise for the work of the Assistance Board. It was praised on both sides of the House for its skill, sympathy and tact in administering its work. I hope that war widows who may have recourse to the Assistance Board will remove from their minds all fear that there is anything to be ashamed of, of anything to be afraid of, in drawing money from my right hon. Friend instead of drawing it from me, for that is the only difference and there is no difference between us. We are both acting as organs of the Government. Therefore, no widow who fails to qualify for this pension and no widow who finds her pension inadequate to maintain a decent standard of life need feel that that is the last resort.
I must come to this demand for a Royal Commission. It has been changed from the previous demand for a Select Committee. The reasons for which the Government ask the House to reject the demand for a Royal Commission are precisely the same as our reasons for asking the House to reject the previous demand for a Select Committee, namely, that it is both inappropriate and unnecessary. Let me first say why I think that it is inappropriate. A Royal Commission is a good instrument when we want to survey some new realm of public action or inquire into some entirely new problem. The Royal Commission on the Poor Law did great work in the days of Sidney Webb. The Barlow Commission on the location of industry focused public intention on a new problem. The Royal Commission on Population which is now sitting will probably provide us with valuable information and suggestions as to possible action.
But the war pensions field is not a new realm of policy. If a Royal Commission were required on this subject, it might have been set up a long time ago. A Select Committee was a good thing in 1919, when the whole war pensions system had broken down. It set to work and brought order—even though it was a harsh order—out of chaos, but the system which we are at present discussing has not broken down now. Even if we had

149
a Royal Commission it would not be the right instrument to get the job done quickly. Who ever heard of a Royal Commission doing its job quickly? It amazed me to hear the hon. Member for Cardigan state that our improvements were too slow and should have taken place a long time ago, and that if we had a Royal Commission we should have had them sooner. There is a Royal Commission on the trend of the birth rate and population which has been sitting for five and a half years. It has not yet hatched its egg. There is a Commission on awards to inventors which has been sitting for three years. The Commission on Justices of the Peace sat for two years before it published its Report. I could quote other examples but the best way I can answer the case for a Royal Commission is to quote to hon. Members opposite what a newspaper which generally supports them said about it:
"Whenever a new crack appears in the Social fabric, whenever somebody makes a loud enough clamour, the suggestion is sure to be made that a Royal Commission be appointed.
A dozen eminent persons are assembled, evidence is called for, and in due course a Report is published.
This may, in a world governed in accordance with Puffingtonian standards, pass for action. There are some, however, who query both the wisdom and practicality of this procedure."
The article goes on to quote a statement made by the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), which has become almost historic, and continues:
"Our present rulers seem to forget that Parliament is essentially the council of the nation; it is not a mere legislative conveyor-belt. The problems, the anxieties, the strains and bewilderments of our time should be openly and fully discussed in Parliament—not relegated to learned committees and august commissions."
That is the opinion of the "Evening News." [Interruption.] The "Evening News" can be right on occasion, and these seem to be wise and sensible remarks on this subject. I must admit they were not published in tonight's issue of the "Evening News."
I said that I believed that I have proved that a Royal Commission is an inappropriate means for this purpose. I believe that the laughter of hon. Members opposite confirms my opinion. I think it is unnecessary, for all the reasons which were given earlier to day by the
150
Parliamentary Secretary. There is no chaos today. We have a very different machine, which can work quickly, and the figures which were given this afternoon prove how quickly it can work. When I spoke in the House on 29th July, one hon. Member said:
"I ask the Minister not to come here with preconceived ideas, but to listen to the Debate and read the speech of the hon. Member for Lonsdale. If that does not stir his heart, nothing will."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 1673–4.]
He had the feeling at the time, and I do not blame him, that because I have been trained as an economist I could not possibly have any human feelings. But look what has happened since. Look how quickly it is possible to get to work and make progress. The constant attendance allowance payments were 5,180. Now they are 6,648. At that time the unemployability supplements were 8,800; they are now 13,020. At that time the special hardship allowances were 2,430; they are now 10,160. I can beat a Royal Commission any time in speed of action with the machine which I fortunately have at my disposal. I happen to have been a civil servant and as Minister I happen to have been in two other Departments—even though one was a very small one—before I came to the present Department. I know something of the Government machine. I say without hesitation that the Ministry of Pensions is second to none in efficiency. We know from what we have heard tonight that it is second to none in human sympathy and understanding.
I say it is unnecessary to have an inquiry because we already have a Central Advisory Committee which meets frequently and regularly and has given me valuable help, and which contains on it representatives of all the main ex-Service organisations as well as representatives of three Parties in this House. They have not entirely got used to the idea that they do not have to fight the Minister of Pensions any longer, as they used to have to do; but they will learn and we will get together in a co-operative atmosphere and work out more improvements when the time and the general budgetary situation permits. An inquiry is unnecessary because we have made vast improvements in four years.
The improvements made and announced in the White Paper of

151
December, 1945, have cost some £9 million a year and they will cost more as time goes on. The further improvements made since that White Paper of 1945 have increased the additional cost to between £10 million and £12 million a year. It is not right to suggest, as some hon. Members seem inclined to do, that these improvements were small or were tiny concessions, or crumbs of comfort. They are nothing of the sort. They are large and substantial. The figures given by my hon. Friend this afternoon—which I recognise that hon. Members could not have entirely followed, since it is difficult to pick up figures quickly from a speech—will bear careful study. I hope they will receive more careful study than my 23rd Report appears to have received. Hon. Members who have not the time to read a little booklet costing a shilling, which is not very long, must not ask for a Royal Commission's report which usually consists of two or three volumes.
I wish to refer briefly to one other matter. The hon. Member for Lonsdale naturally and rightly wants more information about pensions to be published. He has already had, confidentially in his capacity as a member of the Advisory Committee, access to interesting and valuable information to which he has kindly not referred at all. He would like more information of that kind produced and I do not blame him. When I read last September a leading article in "The Times" on my Department, I was struck with the justice of the claim by "The Times" that we had not been able to publish enough information, so I published my 23rd Report as quickly thereafter as I could get it done.
Since then I have appointed my welfare officers. They have conducted 100,000 interviews and they have been gathering information about the mode of life and standard of living and difficulties, and hardships, and amenities, with which pensioners are faced such as no other previous Government has bothered to collect, even when the number of pensioners was much smaller than it is today. All that information is not yet fully digested. It cannot be published appropriately at this moment, because it is not digested and it is still a comparatively small sample.
152
I am not inclined to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Lonsdale that I should now go to some university or outside body for a sample survey, even though the British Legion might be willing to pay the cost. What I am doing is better than a sample survey. I am interviewing gradually the whole body of war pensioners who feel themselves in any way in need. The whole purpose is not a sociological exercise, though heaven knows that my previous training would incline me to go in for sociological exercises. The purpose is to find out where need exists. I believe that we do more good by pressing on with our present inquiries than by pressing on with a new, albeit impartial, sample survey. I recognise the justice and reasonableness of the demand for information. I will undertake that when I have had time to gather more of that information and to digest it properly, I will publish it in the 24th Report of the Ministry in the Autumn of next year. Let the world have a look at it, let this House have a look at it, and I shall be only too willing to have another Debate on that subject at that time.
Sir I. Fraser: Too late.
Mr. Marquand: It is not. Did I make a mistake? I meant October of this year. I have been asked by the hon. Member for Lonsdale, why was a three-line whip issued for this Debate? The whip was issued because on the first day of the reassembly of Parliament we wanted—
Sir I. Fraser: I did not ask why: I said I quite understood.
Mr. Marquand: I am sorry. It so happened that at the time I was outside. Evidently a wrong report of what the hon. Member said was conveyed to me. We might as well have the reasons even though the hon. Member knows them. We wanted a large attendance because we are proud of what we have done and because we cannot understand why this demand is made. We still do not understand at the end of this Debate. We never understood the demand for a Select Committee. We do not now understand the need for a Royal Commission in view of all the information and facts which I have given to the House. We still feel that there must be some sinister motive behind this. If this matter is pressed to a Division, we shall welcome the Division and the verdict of the House.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 307; Noes, 149.

Division No.105.]

AYES

9.58 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Ewart, R.

Lever, N. H.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Fairhurst, F.

Levy, B. W.

Albu, A. H.

Farthing, W. J.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Fernyhough, E.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Field, Capt. W. J.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Lindgren, G. S.

Alpass, J. H.

Foot, M. M

Lipton, Lt.-Col, M

Attewell, H. C.

Forman, J. C.

Logan, D. G.

Austin, H. Lewis

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Lyne, A. W.

Awbery, S. S.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

McAdam, W.

Ayles, W. H.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

McAllister, G.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Gibbins, J.

McEntee, V. La T.

Bacon, Miss A.

Gibson, C. W

McGhee, H. G.

Baird, J.

Gilzean, A.

McGovern, J.

Balfour, A.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Mack, J. D.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Barstow, P. G.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Barton, C.

Grenfell, D. R

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Battley, J. R.

Grey, C. F.

McLeavy, F.

Bechervaise, A.E

Grierson, E.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Benson, G.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Bing, G. H. C

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Binns, J.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Blenkinsop, A

Gunter, R. J.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Blyton, W. R.

Guy. W. H.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Boardman, H.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

Hale, Leslie

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Mayhew, C. P.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Mell R. J.

Bramall, E. A.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Messer, F.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hardman, D. R.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hardy, E. A.

Mitchison, G. R.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Harrison, J.

Monslow, W.

Brown, George (Belper)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Morley, R.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Haworth, J.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Burden, T. W.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

Morrison, RI. Hn. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Callaghan, James

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Mort, D. L.

Carmichael, James

Herbison, Miss M.

Moyle, A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Murray, J. D.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Hobson, C. R.

Naylor, T. E.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Holman, P.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Cluse, W. S.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Cobb, F. A.

Horabin, T. L.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Coldrick, W.

Houghton, A. L. N. D

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Collick, P.

Hoy, J.

O'Brien, T.

Collindridge, F.

Hubbard, T.

Oldfield, W. H.

Collins, V. J.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Paget, R. T.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Cook, T. F.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pargiter, G. A.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W)

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton. W.)

Parker, J.

Cove, W. G.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Parkin, B. T.

Crawley, A.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pearson, A.

Cullen, Mrs.

Daines, P.

Janner, B.

Peart, T. F.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Jay, D. P. T.

Perrins, W.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Popplewell, E.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pa<ob/>, S.E.)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Deer, G.

Jenkins, R H.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

John, W.

Price, M. Philips

Delargy, H. J.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Pryde, D. J.

Diamond, J.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Dobbie, W

Jones, Jack (Bolton)

Ranger, J.

Dodds, N. N

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Rankin, J.

Donovan, T.

Keenan, W.

Rees-Williams, D. R

Driberg, T. E. N.

Kenyon, C.

Reeves, J.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Dumpleton, C. W.

King, E. M.

Rhodes, H.

Dye, S.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Kinley, J.

Robens, A.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Kirby B. V

Robinson, K. (St. Pancras)

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D

Rogers, G. H. R.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly

Lavers, S.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Lawson, Rt. Hon, J. J

Sangood, R.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Scollan, T.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Leonard, W.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Leslie. J. R.

Segal, Dr. S.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Symonds, A. L.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Sharp Granville

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wigg, George

Shawcross, Rt. Hot. Sir H. St Helens)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A D

Shinwell, Rt Hon. E.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Wilkes, L.

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wilkins, W. A

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Simmons, C. J.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Skeffington, A. M.

Thurtle, Ernest

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Timmons, J.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Skinnard, F. W.

Titteringlon, M. F.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Sorensen, R. W.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Vernon, Maj. W. F

Willis, E

Sparks, J. A.

Viant, S. P.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Steele, T.

Walker, G. H.

Wise, Major F. J.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Stokes, R. R.

Warbey, W. N.

Woods, G. S.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Watson, W. M.

Yates, V. F.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R (Lambeth)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Stross, Dr. B.

Weitzman, D.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Stubbs, A. E.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Zilliacus, K

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Swingler, S.

West, D. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Sylvester, G. O.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Gridley, Sir A.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Grimston, R. V.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Aesheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Neven-Spence, Sir B

Baldwin, A. E.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V

Nicholson, G.

Barlow, Sir J.

Haughton, S. G

Nield, B. (Chester)

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

Head, Brig. A. H.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Bennett, Sir P.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Birch, Nigel

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Pickthorn, K.

Bossom, A. C.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Ponsonby, Col. C. E

Bower, N.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Prescott, Stanley

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hollis, M. C.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Raikes, H. V.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Hope, Lord J.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Renton, D.

Burke, W. A.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr, N..J.

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Butcher, H. W.

Hurd, A.

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Byers, Frank

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Challen, C

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Channon, H.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Scott, Lord W.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Kendall,. W. D.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smiles, Lt-Col. Sir W.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Langford-Holt, J.

Smithers, Sir W.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Snadden, W. M.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Linstead, H. N.

Studholme, H. G.

De la Bere, R.

Lipson, D. L.

Sutcliffe, H.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Low, A. R. W.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'tn, S.)

Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Drayson, G. B.

Lucas-Tooth, S. H.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Drewe, C.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

McCallum, Maj. D.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Eccles, D. M.

MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

Touche, G. C

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

McFarlane, C. S.

Turton, R. H.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Walkden, E.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Walker-Smith, D

Foster. J. G. (Northwich)

MacLeod, J.

Ward, Hon. G. R

Fox, Sir G.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Watkins, T. E.

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Maitland, Comdr, J. W.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Gage, C.

Marples, A. E.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Maude, J. C.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Medlicott, Brigadier F

York, C.

George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

Mellor, Sl J.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Molson, A. H. E.

Glyn, Sir R.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gooch, E. G.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Mr. Bowen and Mr. Emrys Roberts.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Question put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1949–50 CLASS I

  TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS
  Motion made, and Question proposed:
  "That a sum not exceeding £2,289,926, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments, including additional salary payable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster." [£1,000,000 has been voted on account.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

ROYAL NAVY (COMPASSIONATE LEAVE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. A. Edward Davies: This evening I wish to draw the attention of the House to the dissatisfaction which is felt not only, I believe, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent but generally throughout the country, at the manner in which the naval authorities, the Admiralty, are treating applications for compassionate leave in circumstances where there is some distress. In the case which I have in mind a parent was thought to be dying and certainly was in a critical condition. I shall refer in the course of my remarks to a case which I have in hand with the Admiralty concerning number PO/X/127259 Marine Robert Mosedale and about whom Questions have been asked in the House following correspondence between myself and the Admiralty and following applications from the family for consideration of compassionate leave to be given to this' lad who was on H.M.S. "Ocean" which, I believe,
158
was stationed at Malta. Not only was an application made by the family of the lad, but it was also supported by reliable people like S.S.A.F.A. and also by the medical superintendent of the hospital where this unfortunate man, the father of Marine Mosedale, was being treated.
The circumstances were under review for no less than three weeks. It was in the latter end of January that the family first made an approach to the authorities, addressing their communications, in this case, "C/o G.P.O., London," and asking for leave for their son because the father was dangerously ill. They did not meet with much success and later, towards the end of the month, on 28th January to be precise. they made their application through S.S.A.F.A.. The S.S.A.F.A. organisation was approached by the Admiralty authorities, in this case Chatham, to ascertain what was the domestic position, whether there was any son or daughter at the house or with the wife of the man who was ill, I assume, and available to give some assistance. This information was quite quickly posted to the naval authorities and it was said that the expectation of life at the time was almost nil.
This unhappy story went on for three weeks, and the lad was not allowed to come home. As time went on, the father showed slight sign of improvement, and then the pressure, for a week between 8th February and 15th February, was not maintained at the high point. Then, however, the man had a sudden relapse, and the medical superintendent of the hospital was approached to support the application for the son's leave. S.S.A.F.A. again got busy, and I was approached, as the Parliamentary representative, on 17th February. I made representations, as my hon. Friend knows, directly to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. We were not successful, and this lad's father died on 20th February, no opportunity having been given to the lad to see his father beforehand.
I know that this matter is hedged about with difficulties, and I have had a pretty full reply, dated 18th March, from my hon. Friend setting out the circumstances in which cases like this one are considered. It is stated there that the considerations which have to be borne in mind are, the serious illness of the wife or child, or the care of young children; if the return to the United Kingdom is the

159
only means of preventing the break-up of a man's family; and the imminent death or serious illness of a parent, provided, in such a case, that the presence of the sailor at home would be of use, and that there is no other son or daughter at home, or readily available, to give the necessary assistance; or if some other exceptional circumstances exist.
I submit that exceptional circumstances obtain, and always do obtain, where there is an only son, as in this case, and where the parent is dangerously ill and the expectation of his life is very small indeed. The smallness of the expectation of life in this case was proved by the fact that the man died very shortly afterwards. I submit that the circumstances are exceptional when an application for a sailor's leave is supported by reliable organisations such as the S.S.A.F.A., which have had long experience in these matters, and do not treat applications in a frivolous way. I submit that exceptional circumstances exist where it can be shown that the patient is likely to profit by the presence of the son. In this case, the doctor thought it would be a good thing for this son to be present in the hospital, that it would cheer his father and give him some incentive to live longer—for a reasonable span of years.
The Admiralty will say that the circumstances showed that there was a daughter at home and that there was a son-in-law. I must point out that the daughter had a job of work to do: she had a child less than 12 months old. The son-in-law had a job which required him to go out at 6 o'clock in the morning and kept him at work until 6 o'clock at night. In addition, it was necessary for some member of the family to go during the man's severe illness to the hospital at night, and it was quite impossible for this small household to carry on in those difficult circumstances.
The point I am making is this. Where there is an only son, and the lad is 26 years of age, he can rightly be regarded as having a responsible position in the family, and some serious and sympathetic consideration ought to be given to his case. My point is that that consideration ought to have been given in this case, and I say that in all similar circumstances, in which there is an only son, it is not good enough to say that because
160
there is a daughter or a son-in-law, and despite the difficult circumstances of the home, the sailor boy cannot be allowed to go home.
Moreover, the position is worsened when the family can read, as this family were able to read in this instance, a report in the "Daily Telegraph" of 18th February that a lad from a nearby ship, upon representations, as I understand the position, by his sister, and whose home was in Cornwall, was able to go home, and was flown home to see his father, and, in fact, arrived at home the next day. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) will be able to tell us of another boy, in similar circumstances, who was asked for to see his mother, who was said to be dying. This boy was on the same ship and leave was refused. It may be said with some cogency that the final decision should be left with the captain of the ship, and that the lad may be engaged on duties or situated somewhere which makes it difficult for him to be liberated, but I can quote from a letter in my possession to show that this lad was on shore duty and was not likely to set sail until the second week in March. Let it be noted that his father died on 20th February.
Similarly, in the case raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, this boy was not at sea. He was at Malta. The case might be enlarged upon, but I desire to leave time for my hon. Friend to say a word or two and for the Minister to reply. As I have said, the matter has been raised in this House and my hon. Friend said under pressure that his noble Friend was taking an interest in the case which I have raised, and that he would investigate the circumstances and let me have a reply. I asked him—I think it was on 6th April—whether he was in a position to let me have a reply—or it may have been a few days later—and he promised to speed up the investigation. Up-to-date, no reply has come to hand. If we expect a lad to take an interest in the Service, he has a right in these days of modern transportation to feel that, in distressing circumstances such as these, every consideration will be given to bringing him home. He himself should be satisfied that he will have the opportunity, perhaps for the last time, of seeing his

161
parent. This should be done for the consolation of the family, apart from the material circumstances by which he may assist in the home affairs.
The Financial Secretary, in reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme concerning a recent case, said that he would look at the regulations and see whether anything further could be done. Tonight I ask whether anything further has been done, and whether a little humanity cannot be brought into these matters, and whether it is appreciated that the present position is leading to unequal treatment and giving rise to great dissatisfaction.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Mack: I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) for curtailing his remarks in order to allow me a few moments to make to the Parliamentary Secretary my case concerning Leading Patrolman T. Ikin of 54, Silverdale Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme, about whom a Question was asked in the House on 13th April. I am advised that arrangements have been made to have Ikin's application for compassionate leave reconsidered as a matter of urgency. That was the statement made in a letter to me from the Admiralty on 25th March, and up to the present nothing further has been heard concerning the investigation, which, I understand, the Parliamentary Secretary was making to see if it was possible for the regulations to be modified in some way. As I understand the situation, there is an Admiralty Fleet Order which leaves the final decision in cases of this kind to the commander-in-chief on the spot. I understand also that the needs of the Service must be taken into consideration. I am sure everybody will appreciate the delicate task which any commander in-chief must have in such a matter of great human anguish.
I am not here to criticise the action in any way at all, but I say that if we are to stimulate recruiting in the Services—most of us, I believe, are anxious that they should be well manned—we must give encouragement to, and allay discontent in, the Services. In cases where it is established beyond doubt that a parent is on the threshold of death and where that parent is crying out for the son, surely something should be done to exercise the widest limit of understanding and to use the greatest degree of imagination
162
possible in order to bring back the boy to see the parent, particularly in peacetime. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, like all of us, is a human being with human feelings, and I am not in any way suggesting that he lacks compassion, but since he has already promised to look into the matter, we shall be very grateful if he can tell us more and say what is the result of his investigation.
This young man joined the Royal Navy at the age of 16 and has served ever since. He had exciting and dangerous experiences in the Battle of Crete. He was awarded the African Star. He took part in Russian convoy work and was slightly wounded in the head. His record in the Navy is an excellent one. The case of the mother is known. She is unfortunately dying—for all I know to the contrary she may have passed away at the moment—of cancer in the bowels. She is crying out for her son. As everybody knows, it is a type of disease which causes great physical torment as well as mental torment. While it is true my hon. Friend said that if he were to make any discrimination in favour of this case, it might cause discontent in comparable cases in the Services, a start has to be made some time and if the only result of this Adjournment Debate is to help others in the future who may be placed in similar circumstances, it will have been effective.
I would say this finally to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary not unkindly for I do not want any acerbity or acrimony to come into this. Obviously my hon. Friend and I have spoken with a certain amount of feeling. These are constituents of ours. Like other hon. Members, we are anxious to see encouragement given to every boy joining the Services of this country. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary must look into these cases of great misfortune of a domestic character, which may cause heartburn and which certainly worry men and make them incapable of doing their duty with such horrible, harrowing feelings hanging over them; and he must urge the Government to do something. I trust that he will have regard to these matters and will try to give us some encouragement or some indication that he will speedily and forthwith take the necessary steps so urgently needed in cases of this kind.
10.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I appreciate very much the way in which this question has been raised by my hon. Friends. They might have made much more violent speeches. They might have let their emotions run to a much greater extent than they have done. I realise that this is a subject which excites very great emotion, and rightly so.
I will take first the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bursiem (Mr. Edward Davies), that of Marine Mosedale. The position was that this man was on duty. It is true that his ship was in port, but he was on duty doing Commando work which he had had the opportunity of doing for the first time for some considerable period, and his commanding officer thought it was necessary for him to have practice in doing this work. Now, under the regulations as they are at present, the commanding officer was entitled to give the answer 'he did give. He was acting completely within his rights and he was entitled to give such an answer. It was up to him to say if it was possible for this man to be spared.
With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack), Ikin was also on duty and I said I would make investigations into his case; I said I would do that as a general question rather than as a particular case. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend appreciates fully the difficulties the commander-in-chief is in. After all, the commander-in-chief is just as concerned about the men's welfare as any hon. Member here. It is not a pleasant decision that a commander-in-chief has to make. I know this myself because I have had numerous compassionate cases, not only of this character but of others, sent to me by hon. Members. I can assure my hon. Friend, and the Civil Lord will agree with me, that these are by far the most difficult part of our work. They involve the giving of a decision. It may be that the easier decision to make is to give what is wanted, but one may have to take a harder line than one would like to take. So much for this individual case.
But we have been investigating the general question and have gone into it
164
very fully, and my noble Friend has, as I have said, taken a personal interest in it. As a result he is satisfied that some change has got to be made in the Naval Regulations with the idea of ensuring that an officer or man in the Royal Navy may be assured of treatment reasonably equivalent to that of a man in the other Services. My noble Friend is now taking the opportunity of the presence in this country, on Exercise Trident, of most of the commanders-in-chief from stations abroad of discussing this matter with them this week, and he anticipates it may be possible for me to be able to make a statement quite shortly.
How we shall change the regulations I cannot explain in detail now. Our aim is to see that they are framed in such a way as to give treatment equivalent to what men in the other Services get. Undoubtedly, our regulations are rather harder than in the other two Services. This may not be of any help personally to Marine Mosedale, because the time for help there has passed. But I think he and Ikin will feel that it is, at any rate, some consolation to them to know that this alteration is to be made and that in future other men may not be placed in the position in which they have been placed. I cannot say the exact form these changes will take but they will undoubtedly make things easier for men serving who find themselves in this appalling position. We have got to safeguard the interests of the Service and to see that men are not brought back indiscriminately; but at the same time we want to see that men get more lenient treatment and my noble Friend is determined to see that they do get it.
Mr. Mack: While thanking my hon. Friend for that encouraging statement, which I am sure has gratified everyone in the House, may I ask would it not be possible at this last minute, as a gesture at least in this case, to allow Ikin to come home?
Mr. Dugdale: I shall certainly consider the matter as a point of urgency. I cannot promise anything at the moment, but I will bear that point in mind.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

  BRITISH ARMY (SOLDIERS' ACCOUNTS)
  BRITISH ARMY (SOLDIERS' ACCOUNTS)
SCOTLAND
  Milk
  Milk
  Rural Water Supplies
  Rural Water Supplies
  Local Elections
  Local Elections
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEAL)
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEAL)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Retail Prices
  Retail Prices
  Cotton and Rayon Cloths
  Cotton and Rayon Cloths
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION
  AIRMEN'S WIVES (ELECTORAL REGISTRATION)
  AIRMEN'S WIVES (ELECTORAL REGISTRATION)
  AGRICULTURE (LINSEED)
  AGRICULTURE (LINSEED)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Cement Manufacture, Scotland
  Cement Manufacture, Scotland
  Employees, Sellafield
  Employees, Sellafield
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Sugar Refining
  Sugar Refining
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Identity Cards (Stamping)
  Identity Cards (Stamping)
  Canadian Apples
  Canadian Apples
  CONTROL COMMISSION, GERMANY (ACCOMMODATION)
  CONTROL COMMISSION, GERMANY (ACCOMMODATION)
  PURCHASE TAX
  PURCHASE TAX
  PRODUCTIVITY CAMPAIGN (ADVERTISEMENT)
  PRODUCTIVITY CAMPAIGN (ADVERTISEMENT)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PAYMASTER - GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that when I first received the intimation that I was to move the Second Reading of this Bill during the first Sitting of your Lordships' House after the Recess, I experienced something of a shock. That shock was intensified a few hours later when I heard a sentence attributed to Lord Morley. Lord Morley was referring to his experience in addressing your Lordships' House, and he used these words:
  "I have had fifty years' experience of public life, and your Lordships' House is by far the most difficult assembly which I have had to address. What disturbs the speaker is not opposition, because that stimulates and brings out reserves of power; it is the silent resentment evident in your Lordships' faces."
  That sentence would have been devastating, were it, not that in another place I had been privileged to look at the faces of many who are now members of this House. It is true that sometimes I saw those faces frown with disdain when
  2
  listening to an inconclusive and unconvincing argument, but on the whole they were friendly faces, and that encouraged me most. I was further encouraged by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Addison, whose absence from to-day's proceedings I know we all deplore. He said to me: "Don't you worry too much. You will find the House of Lords, to one of their members venturing forth for the first time, the most sympathetic Assembly in the world. Further, you are dealing with a subject with which you ought to be intimately acquainted."
  It is now well-nigh fifty years since I was brought into very close and direct contact with this industry. The day that I was thirteen I entered a pit cage for the first time, and I was almost literally hurled some 1,500 to 1,600 feet into the bowels of the earth. There, I was employed fifty-four hours a week and I received in return for my weekly wage a golden half-sovereign. I was rather interested in looking back, and I asked for some figures so that we might compare them and also learn what this industry has done in various ways during the first half of this century. I asked what was the cost per ton raised in 1901, and I was told that it was 8s. 9d. In 1947, the latest year for which figures are available, it was 40s. 3d. per ton. I also asked what was the average yearly wage of a miner in 1901, and I was told that it was £79. In 1947 it was £347. Those figures indicate that this industry has made some progress during this century. I do not think that any industry has occupied so much Parliamentary time during that

  3
  period as has the coal industry. The number of references in Hansard of both Houses to the coal industry during this century is amazing. There is a mass of legislation, and to-day I am asking your Lordships to agree to add to that mass of legislation.
  The Bill before us attempts to amend two Acts of Parliament, the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. Part I deals with the latter of those Acts. I know that there will be general agreement in your Lordships' House that the 1946 Act needs amendment. I should be amazed if any member of this House were to rise to his feet to-day and suggest that that is not so. I anticipate unanimity on the need for amendment. It may be—I sometimes fear that it will be—an ominous unanimity, to be used later on to emphasise that what is wrong with this Bill is that it does not do enough, that it is too small, that it niggles instead of dealing drastically with matters which need to be dealt with in relation to the 1946 Act. The Government feel that the day has not yet arrived when a general revision of the provisions of the 1946 Act is required. They agree that that day will come, and may come before long, but the experience up to date indicates that though a drastic revision is unnecessary at the moment there is need to-day for some modifying amendments.
  Clause 1, which may be the most contentious clause in the Bill, deals with the constitution of the National Coal Board. I would like here—and I am sure your Lordships will agree—to pay a tribute to the National Coal Board. They are a body of men who have been sorely and severely criticised, but I wonder how much better any eight or nine of us, having been entrusted with the same obligations and the same responsibilities, would have done since the vesting date in January, 1947. The members of the Board have had a difficult task, but they have realised that changes are required, and they have made changes on their own. As your Lordships know, the original Board was composed of nine men, including the Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and seven members, all of whom had functional responsibilities. To-day, we find that, apart from the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, the
  4
  Board has been increased by one part-time member. We also find that more than half the Board have been relieved of their functional responsibilities and have only general responsibilities. That is a massive change.
  I know your Lordships will agree that to set up a perfect board would be utterly impossible. Deciding the best type of board is a difficult thing. Many of the biggest industrial concerns in the country have a board of full-time directors; others have some full-time and some part-time directors. It has been necessary to gain some experience in deciding which type fits best into this nationalised industry. The Minister of Fuel and Power himself, some ten or eleven months ago, indicated that he felt the time was approaching when it would be necessary to have part-time members of the Board. The committee set up by the Coal Board itself—a committee of three, with a part-time member—recommended that additional part-time members, along with an additional Deputy Chairman, might be added to the Board. Clause 1 of the Bill carries out that recommendation in its entirety.
  If I needed any support in this matter of the necessity for part-time members of this Board I should refer to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. On June 18, 1946, in the debate in your Lordships' House on the Committee stage of the original Bill, the noble Viscount said:
  "I am sure there could not be any greater fallacy than to say that nobody is going to be a director of one of these concerns unless he is going to devote his whole time to it."
  Earlier, the noble Viscount had said:
  "… or you can have a 'mixed grill' …"
  The noble Viscount must have been thinking about the pre-war type of mixed grill! I have found further support from another member of your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who will perhaps allow me to quote him. The quotation is a fairly lengthy one, but I would ask your Lordships' indulgence to read it, because I have never seen a finer defence of the principle of part-time members of a board of this kind. Speaking on November 3, 1948, in a debate on nationalised industries, the noble Earl used these words:
  "I suggest further that the only way to secure independence, or some element of independence, at the present moment is by having part-time directors. I would press this

  5
  point. I believe that our thoughts are moving in that direction. There are three things which make that essential. The first is greater independence. In nationalised industries there is a grave danger that a man has the alternative of continuing in a situation of complete frustration or of going out into the wilderness, where his own special capacity and ability can have no scope. The Jesuit is that he has to do what he is told, or leave and lose his means of livelihood. The second advantage of having part-lime directors is their wider experience in other fields, and the third is that administration and advice are not always identical they are separate. The man who can give advice is not always a good administrator, and that is particularly true among trade union men. When it comes to advice, many of them are first-class, but their administrative ability is nil. I suggest, therefore, that more consideration should be given to part-time directors."
  I need not add a single word, my Lords, to that convincing statement. All I would say is that Clause 1 is the result of such recommendations and of other contributions made in this House by noble Lords opposite. I know that the clause may not go far enough, and no doubt the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will emphasise that when he speaks. But I think it does go far enough to justify my asking for the approval of your Lordships' House to this Bill, even though the constitution of the Board may not be quite what some desire.
  Clause 2, though possibly less contentious, is a very important clause. We know that at the moment the activities of the National Coal Board are confined to this country. They cannot do anything abroad. Clause 2 is designed to assist them to do what their predecessors did abroad, and to free them of all those limitations imposed by the Act. In this House, of all places, I need not emphasise the importance of the export trade; there is no body of men in this country more conscious of the importance of safeguarding the development of the export trade in general, and of coal in particular. It would be wrong of me to cast any reflection on the exporters. I think they have done, and are doing, a very fine job indeed. At the same time, I do not think that we ought to ask the National Coal Board, with the responsibilities that we have placed upon them by the Act of 1946, to do what is required of them in the Act, without affording them the same liberty of action that their predecessors had in all fields in this country and other countries.
  I know that for the Coal Board to become an exporting agency may have its
  6
  risks; it would be useless to deny that possibility. At the same time, however, I do not think it right or proper to make the Coal Board in any degree dependent upon a body outside itself. I have paid a well-deserved tribute to the exporters, but the exporters in that trade could create difficulties for the Coal Board. It may be said that it is hardly likely that they will do so. I agree, but I do not think that the Coal Board should be asked to be dependent on the good will of an outside body. For that reason, it is thought that this power ought to be given to the Coal Board—maybe not to be exercised—certainly not immediately—but there to be exercised if and when the occasion arises, as well it may. There might be difficulties with which the Coal Board itself would not be in a position to deal, but which the Coal Board could try to level out. For that reason, it is thought proper to ask for power to be given for the Coal Beard to do as much overseas as their predecessors did.
  I am aware that we shall later on hear comments made regarding the bunkering of coal, or the storage of coal on the water-front. The question will be asked: "What about the milling of coal?" But those are possibilities inside the limits of this clause. They are possibilities. Surely no one would expect the National Coal Board to exercise the power given to them by Parliament in a manner which would endanger the interests of this country or of this industry. Surely the Coal Board can be entrusted, both in bunkering coal and in sinking coal mines outside this country, to act with a wisdom that will safeguard the interests of the coal industry under the British people. Although this clause may create an uneasiness in the hearts of many noble Lords in this House, I trust that they will realise the importance of giving this power to the Coal Board.
  Clause 3 deals again with a knotty problem. Those of us associated with this industry know that in the past contracts were made between those then controlling the industry and the users of coal in various capacities—contracts about which those on the workers' side of the industry were a little concerned. Those in control of the industry seemed to be giving far too great concessions. Many of those contracts specified the size and the type of the coal to be

  7
  supplied, in some cases without any limitation of time; they were to go on for ever and sometimes at a very low price. There were not many contracts of that kind; I was told by the Minister last evening that there were under forty. But contracts of that kind need to be dealt with by the Coal Board, for they are hampering the Coal Board in their work. I heard only yesterday of a coal-consuming industry in close relationship with the Coal Board, which had a very fine contract for the supply for ever more of a certain quality of coal. Yet that quality of coal is no longer available, except at very high expenditure. The Coal Board feel that they have been hampered and hindered by that type of contract. This clause asks for them to be allowed, when they feel themselves hampered or hindered by such contracts, to bring about their termination, and to do that by the payment of compensation where that is agreed upon by an arbitrator. I do not think I need say any more with regard to Clause 3.
  Clause 4 deals with a sore problem of some people engaged in the industry—namely, superannuation and other rights. It happens occasionally that an Act of Parliament is not tested in the courts with regard to the construction of certain of its terms. Quite frankly, that is what has happened in this case. It was felt that certain words in the Act could be read in various ways, and that, before any occasion arose for taking a case to court, they should be altered to carry out what was intended by Parliament in 1946. We recognise the difficulty. This Bill does two things. First, it makes perfectly plain which people are entitled to receive compensation; secondly, it makes equally plain who are the people not so entitled. I need not enumerate the different classes, but quite a number of people who thought they might come in will no longer qualify. They are people engaged in those industries which have not been nationalised. The test is: Was their industry nationalised? Was the work that they were doing inside an industry that was nationalised? It is on that point that great difficulty has arisen—for instance, in the case of accountants, estate agents, distributors and the like. The Board are not empowered to compensate that class of person.
  8
  As regards the classes who are to be compensated, experience has shown the need to make quite plain what is meant by the words—I quote them, recognising that I am in the presence of high legal luminaries—
  "expectation of accruer of any particular benefit."
  Perhaps, as a layman, I may put it in this way. We are familiar, for instance, with the case of a colliery company which has an understanding that certain classes of workpeople can retire after, say, thirty years' service, and receive benefits for which they pay no contribution. Maybe one of those men has done ten years' service. He himself is confident in his own capacity, and can see himself, ten or twenty years' hence, as the managing director of that same colliery company. He thinks that, if he is now out of a job, in deciding his compensation regard should be paid to the fact that he might later have held a much more highly-paid post. But he overlooks the possibility that in the intervening period something might happen which would leave him without a job and also deprive him of his pension. In any case, he bases his claim upon his interpretation of those words. The intention of the words in this Bill is to make quite plain what matters will be considered when deciding whether compensation is due under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. Clause 5 is an agreed clause. The Scottish Church trustees and other people have felt that their interests have been endangered, and Clause 5 is an agreed clause to meet this point.
  I can now leave Part I and come to Part II, which is a happier Part for me and, I think, for the whole House. Part II attempts to introduce certain Amendments to the Act of 1911. We are today a long way from 1911, and I think we ought here and now to pay a compliment to the Liberal Government of 1911 who were able to design legislation which has worked so well for so long. Again, if I may, I should like to refer to some figures, because I have asked for the figures of men killed or injured in the coal industry in 1910 and 1948. The figures are as follows: killed in 1910, 1,775; killed in 1948, 468; injured in 1910, 5,432; injured in 1948, 2,390. Those figures, showing substantial reductions, indicate the foresight of that Liberal Government and the value of the actions

  9
  taken in the meantime by various Ministers of Mines and individuals responsible to the industry.
  In reading through the Second Reading debate of 1911 in another place, I noticed that only one who took part in that debate is now with us. He was then the Home Secretary in the Liberal Government, and you will not be surprised to hear that he is now the Leader of the Conservative Party. He was there then, and if I were to read from his (as one would expect) very fine phrasing describing the industry, I could keep the House for quite a while. A member of this House, who spoke for the Opposition in those days and whose name will ever be remembered in the political life of this country was the late Lord Birkenhead. He it was who followed the then Home Secretary, Mr. Winston Churchill. During that debate it was made perfectly plain that the Government were confining themselves to the industry as they knew it and, so far as they could carry their minds into the future, to the technical changes that were likely to take place.
  In the meantime, as your Lordships know, this industry has been revolutionised. The men who could discharge the responsible official duties in the mines of those days are, frankly; not the type who can discharge them to-day; thus Part II makes provision for some improvements in regard to the officials. The word "deputy" will convey but little to many members present, but to those of us who are familiar with the industry it can mean the man who, very possibly, is most responsible for carrying out the safety regulations at all the faces in the mine. It is true that the final responsibility rests upon the manager, but whereas the visits of the manager need be few, the deputy is at the pit every day, and must visit twice a day, with the result that the qualifications fixed in 1911 will not apply to-day. This undoubtedly means that we have to make regulations in order to provide the right type of man to-day. Ministers are engaged in endeavouring to find and train men suitable to discharge the onerous duties of a deputy in a mine.
  Regarding the examination board, I think we all agree that changes in the coal industry also require changes in the tests higher up. The inspectorate of the industry in this country have never received the praise to which they are
  10
  entitled. They have done very fine work but have seldom been referred to, except
  to be criticised. The inspectorate must be manned by men of the highest
  qualifications. The inspectorate also need to have the finest examination board possible; and this Bill provides for that. Let this be understood: that although the Bill extends the power of the Minister, it still carries the obligation for him to consult the industry before deciding upon an alteration in the regulations; and if there is a difference of opinion the matter must go to arbitration for final decision. All those safeguards are here now. My Lords, I have kept the House long enough to-day. I realise that some parts of this Bill will go too far to please all, and that they will not go far enough to please some, but I think the Bill as a whole will go far enough to enable me to ask the House, to give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  3.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, it has often fallen to me, both here and in another place, to congratulate a new member upon a maiden speech, but I cannot recollect that I have ever had the good fortune to congratulate a new member in making a maiden speech as a Minister in charge of a first-class Bill. There may have been some hereditary fear on the part of Lord Morley before he came into this House which made him a little nervous, but the noble Lord who has just sat down has charmed us all by the manner and the matter of his exposition, and I am bound to say that in a long experience of both Houses I have seldom, if ever, met such a wise and experienced "virgin."
  The noble Lord said that I referred to the Coal Board on an earlier occasion as a "mixed grill." I might indeed refer to this Bill as a "mixed grill" or, more accurately, as what in my family we call a "dog's meal"—we collect any odds and ends that may be left from our exiguous rations and put them into a bowl and hope that the dog will thrive. But this is rather an odd mixture. As the noble Lord has rather apologetically admitted, Clause 1 purports to deal effectively with—although it fails entirely in that object—the organisation of the Coal Board and the mining industry. Clauses 2, 3 and 4, as he has explained to us, contain a number of "odds and ends"—some very odd.

  11
  Part II, which we all welcome, contains some sound reforms of the 1911 Act on lines recommended by the Royal Commission.
  Let me deal for a few moments with Clause 1, because however much it fails to do what ought to be done, and as indeed the Minister admitted will have to be done sooner or later, I think we ought on this occasion to give some consideration to the organisation of this, the first of the nationalised industries, of which we have now had two or more years' working experience. There is only one thing on which everyone is agreed—nationalisers and non-nationalisers alike—namely, that the organisation of the industry to-day is far from satisfactory. And I would add that, equally, we all agree that it is important to get it right. The Minister himself has said that although the Government do not regard this organisation as being right, they do not consider this is the proper moment to reconsider the whole structure, but that that will be desirable at some future time. Consequently the Bill introduces no new principles.
  But if the organisation of this key industry is entirely wrong in principle, surely it ought to be changed at once. There is overwhelming evidence to show that it is wrong. Sir Charles Reid, the greatest technician in the mining industry—himself a strong supporter of nationalisation and a member of the Coal Board—saw the working of the Board from the inside and was convinced that the structure was wrong in principle. Another authority, this time an opponent of nationalisation, with almost equal experience, is Colonel Lancaster, who for a very long period was one of the ablest managers of a successful mining undertaking. Both are in agreement as to what is wrong; and, what is much more important, both are in substantial agreement as to how it ought to be put right. In their recommendations, which I am bound to say I fully support, they have the general support of practical experience in business management.
  This enormous octopus of an enterprise is much too large and too varied to be centralised in a functional administration. In a normal-sized business, I think—and I have said so before—that functional directors are generally right. I like to
  12
  see executives on the board, but I like some outside element of broad and wide experience as well. But this business is so vast—1,000 pits and a mass of other undertakings, farms, brick kilns, and I do not know what else—and the conditions vary so much in different areas, that functional directors at the centre cannot function in the sense of getting quick, effective action. I am sure it is essential that the local boards with local knowledge should have the necessary authority and initiative and that the Central Board should be concerned with broad policy, finance, major development plans and research; in fact—I use what is becoming a hackneyed phrase but this is all-important in almost every field now—they should be responsible for the overall plan. There seems to me to be no justification in experience and practice for the interposition of the regional boards—of which the noble Lord has said little—between the Central Board and the areas with whom responsibility should rest.
  As Colonel Lancaster said in another place, administrative emphasis should be as near to the point of production as possible, and superimposed above that should be a Central Board, whose main purpose is that of deciding policy and such other activities as are obviously of a national character. That would enable decisions to be given on day-to-day matters as they arise, rapidly, and not, as at present, by formal consultation with divisional boards and at monthly intervals. I do not believe that anyone, least of all the Minister himself, would deny that that is sound, and I think that I shall carry him with me when I say that those essentials can be obtained in only two ways. The first is by giving to the local board in each area adequate powers of decision and action within the general plan. The second is by relieving the Central Board of a mass of detail work, giving them more time to concentrate on the overall plan and to obtain quick and close contact with the area boards. Both these essentials—the devolution of responsibility on the local boards and the right division of responsibility as between the Central Board and the area boards—are hampered if you interpose between the centre and the responsible area regional boards.
  I must say that I think there is too much of the Civil Service model in all this outfit. I have the greatest possible

  13
  respect for the Civil Service when it is doing its proper job, but its proper job is not running a diversified industry. The Civil Service and anything organised on the lines of the Civil Service will always be centralised and uniform, because the normal job of a Civil Service Department is to carry out a uniform task. I have said once before that it would clearly be ridiculous if the Board of Inland Revenue functioned in a variety of financial ways. Income tax must, of course, be collected in a uniform way, but that is a very different matter from running the coal industry of the country. And, what is more, this cumbrous and centralised administration always means excessive staff. I do not know whether your Lordships have realised that in the last twelve months—the noble Lord will check my figures if I am wrong, but I think they are right—while there has been only a 4 per cent. increase in the number of mineworkers a 14 per cent. increase has taken place in the administrative and non-industrial staffs.
  It is increasingly difficult to see why we should have these regional boards at all. The Minister of Fuel and Power himself said only a few months ago that:
  "… it was always the intention and idea of the National Coal Board that the areas—not the divisions—should be the truly executive operational units which employed the labour and mined and sold the coal. There is no doubt that as area management develops the divisional bounds will become more and more merely co-ordinating and supervising …"
  If that is right—and it is emphasised by two years' experience—why should we keep the regional boards going? The National Board supervises the supervisors, and the regional boards supervise the areas. That is dangerously like the extraordinary picture which Sir Arthur Street (who is, I think, the respected Deputy Chairman of the National Coal Board) drew of an endless chain of supervising authorities rising in a pyramid to a Ministry of Supervision. And Sir Arthur was pleased to picture a Supervising Corporation supervising all the National Boards. He went on to say:
  "Does this point to a need for a Corporation appointed, say, by a Minister of Socialised Industries to co-ordinate the work of all Corporations?"
  I am bound, in fairness, to say that on another occasion when we had a debate on the administration of these nationalised industries, on a Motion put forward by
  14
  the former Master of Balliol, who showed himself in the course of it to be even more dissatisfied than I was, we found ourselves in a strophe and anti-strophe of condemnation. The Lord Chancellor also joined in the damning chorus and said that he entirely dissented from Sir Arthur Street. But that is all very well. It seems to me that "His master's voice" is that of Sir Arthur Street and not that of His Majesty's responsible Ministers.
  The only arguments which the Minister of Fuel and Power has advanced against
  increased independence for these area boards are two. First, he says, "Are these boards—and it is desirable for them to be independent or to have a large measure of independence—to own the assets in their own areas? That is the real criterion of independence." It is really not so at all. It is quite unnecessary: the Central Board can own the coal and the area boards can operate it. There is no reason why they should not. I know that Ministers are not very good at maintaining contact and co-ordination with their fellow Ministers, but I would have thought that the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of
  Supply need not be so completely at loggerheads over this. Just look at the Steel Bill and what is proposed there. The Minister of Supply does not say: "It is quite impossible to have one body owning steel and another body operating steel." On the contrary, he says, "That is the only way in which steel can be nationalised. There will be a Steel Corporation owning it and 107 companies operating." If that is the right thing to do in the case of steel, why is it the wrong thing to do in the case of coal?
  The only other argument the Minister of Fuel and Power advanced is this: "How far are they expected to pay their way?—because some of them will operate at a loss." That is an equally fallacious argument. The overall plan of the Central Board must decide broadly how much each area should produce. Targets are common form to-day: the Chancellor of the Exchequer sets then for the country, and the President of the Board of Trade distributes them throughout industries. There is nothing new, or apparently difficult, in the Government or any of their organisations or agencies setting targets. That is a function of the Board, and it is a function of the Board to plan where

  15
  large developments should take place. It may well be that some areas will operate at a profit and others at a loss, but I am certain that we shall get cheaper and more efficient production if the area boards are given wide authority to achieve their targets and manage their business in the best way they can. We shall then have local knowledge, local pride and local encouragement and, in so far as we can get it within nationalised industry, local competition; and all these would be very good things. The only test should be: What will produce the best results, material and moral, from each area? I think we should make a great deal better appeal to the capacity of those working in the industry, as well as have different minds trying out their own ideas, if we gave responsibility to the areas.
  Because I have, as many of my friends have, very definite views as to the reforms which should be made, and because the noble Lord himself has said that they have to be made sooner or later, I have thought it right to say what in our opinion these reforms should be, in order that we may waste as little time as possible in a situation where time is not necessarily on our side. I am not going to divide the House against this Bill. But the appointment of a few part-time directors on the Central Board, while shirking all the outstanding problems of central, regional and local organisation and administration, is just tinkering with the situation. In the classic phrase of the former Minister of Fuel and Power, I do not think it is worth "a tinker's cuss."
  I come to Clause 2, with which the noble Lord dealt in a persuasive manner. It is general and obscure in its language, but it conceals a complete reversal of the policy which Parliament laid down in the Act of 1946. If we passed this clause, it would enable the Board to conduct any activities outside the United Kingdom. The policy which it is now proposed to reverse represented the deliberate decision of Parliament. It was not a decision imposed upon the Government by the Opposition. It was the Government's own proposal to Parliament. What justification has been given by the noble Lord to-day for this drastic change in policy, which the Government themselves commended and which Parliament put into the Act? The Board are overwhelmed
  16
  by their present duties. They have themselves frequently drawn attention to the vastness and variety of the duties imposed upon them. They have complained, not unreasonably, that they have had to undertake these vast and varied duties prematurely, without any prearranged plan and, as is apparent, these activities have taxed the capacity of the Board to the utmost; and, indeed, have proved beyond their capacity. Why, in these circumstances, should they seek to extend their duties, and to extend them in fields which are well covered and served?
  The noble Lord has given us no case, no particular instance, to justify this change in what Parliament has enacted. Neither the Government nor the Board know which of these new powers they want to exercise, how they would exercise them if we gave them the powers, and why they should have them. If Parliament passes this, the Board are to have power to engage in merchanting and bunkering coal anywhere overseas and, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has said, these transactions are vitally important to our export trade. These are fields which are already very efficiently covered. I speak from some personal knowledge of this. The noble Lord was good enough to refer to my knowledge of the industry. As a buyer of coal, as a director of various overseas undertakings which are large consumers of coal, I have always made it my aim to direct as many contracts as possible to buying British coal; and we have not been unsuccessful. From my experience I can say that the coal merchants know the needs of their clients, and they compete for service. Our anxiety as buyers of British coal is not about the merchant, who we know will serve as well, but about the Coal Board. Will they produce enough coal of the right quality? Quality is vital to us; price is a secondary consideration. Let the Coal Board stick to their job of producing enough coal of good quality—that is a big enough one.
  I know that the Under-Secretary said the Government wanted to follow the example of Poland. He did not explain why. I do not know why Poland should be a kind of Delphic Oracle, and why, because Poland does it, we must do it. As Poland is a totalitarian country, run on a Communist model, it would be better if the Coal Board made less use

  17
  of her as a model and applied more of a self-denying ordinance. Where the Government seek to override the considered opinion of Parliament and the provisions of an Act which we passed only two years ago, I suggest that they should come to your Lordships' House with full justification for any new powers they require. No justification has been given, and no attempt has been made to give any. What the noble Lord said to-day amounts to this: that he thought these merchants were doing a successful job, but they might not serve the country so well as the Board. I wish we could count on the Coal Board with as much confidence as we can count on the competitive coal merchants! This hypothetical reason is not a very good one for asking Parliament to change its policy within two years.
  It was said that we might be faced with a new situation and might want to act quickly, and that it takes a long time to pass an Act of Parliament or to amend an Act. I will give the Minister a simple way of overcoming this difficulty. Do not let him take this unjustified power to override an Act of Parliament, but let him take in the Bill a power to come to Parliament, when he has a case, to make an Order which would be subject to Parliamentary approval—I do not care much whether it is by a positive or a negative Resolution. When he has a case—either a specific case or a more general case—where the Coal Board, or the Minister of Fuel and Power, can show to Parliament that the merchants ought to be supplanted, then I am certain that Parliament would be prepared to deal with such an Order, rapidly, fairly and on its merits.
  The only other argument I heard was that the Minister needs to direct exports, as if coal, which was a rare commodity two years ago, were now a rare commodity like industrial diamonds or radium. That is not my anxiety in the world situation as I see it developing to-day. With a potential development in Poland (I think almost an actual development to-day) with its Silesian mines, of something like 100,000,000 tons, with the United States, whose capacity for production is enormous, having entered the export market, which they used not to worry about, and 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 tons being sent into the
  18
  export market; and with other Continental coalfields resuming their old position, I do not think coal is going to be a rare commodity. I am more anxious because we may find in the next four or five years that we have a glut of coal, and that we shall have to sell coal in keen competition overseas, as we used to in the old days. If that turns out to be the case, we shall need all the brains, connections and good will of the coal merchants to sell our coal.
  I now come to Clause 3, which the noble Lord "slid over." This is a clause which gives power to break contracts. Here again, when the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act was before Parliament, we debated this matter very fully, and we came to an agreed solution. The broad proposition was that the Board should have power to reopen or set aside contracts only if they had been entered into after the decision to nationalise coal had been announced, if they were contracts which (if I may paraphrase what was decided) had not been entered into in good faith—that is to say, contracts entered into with the object of defeating nationalisation after it had been announced—or contracts entered into with an unreasonable want of prudence. The lawyers had a great discussion in arriving at that agreed phrase. Your Lordships will see that that was provided for in Section 7 of the Act. But subject to that, the Board, like any other company, were to take over, subject to existing contracts.
  What is proposed now? It is proposed that the Board should have power to terminate contracts of various kinds (it was said that there were about 40; I am not concerned with the number, but with the principle) if the Board are of opinion that they are, or are likely to be, hampered by the operation of those provisions. Why should the Board have this extraordinary power? If the Board can set aside any past contract which they think may hamper them in the efficient performance of their functions it would be a short step to saying that they can set aside future contracts if they find them hampering them. Let the Government realise what a dangerous precedent they may be setting, not only in this country but outside it. Let thorn look at their own experience. We are negotiating to-day in the Argentine for a new meat

  19
  contract. What is the Government's charge—and it is a perfectly justified charge—against the Argentine Government? It is that the Argentine Government failed to carry out the contract which was entered into by both parties. The Argentine Government allege—I do not know with what truth—that it was unduly onerous. What was the answer of His Majesety's Government to the Argentine Government? They said: "Whether the contract was onerous or not, it was a contract which you entered into."
  All business and commerce rests on the confidence that contracts and engagements between Governments or individuals will be honoured, unless they are varied by mutual consent. It may be said that a particular contract does not pay, or that it is difficult to deliver the kind of coal. I leave aside the contract, if there be one, where particular favour was accorded. But let not the Minister suppose there was anything unreasonable about this. I speak as one who knows a good deal about entering into contracts for a particular type of coal—it may be a particular type of coking coal, or a particular size or quality of coal. In the business with which I am connected, we have for years analysed carefully every cargo of coal we have bought in order to see that the chemical analysis is right. We have always bought on that analysis, and had a guarantee. These contracts are not entered into for fun; the terms are laid down because particular industries need a certain type of coal. To say that the Board can set aside a contract because they find it onerous—that is to say, inconvenient—or because it does not show a profit (and every contract cannot show a profit) is a precedent which I think the Government are most ill-advised to start.
  The noble Lord said that compensation will be paid if the contract is not abnormal—if it is entered into at arm's length, or as if it were entered into at arm's length in the open market. If it is a special contract, of course, it is not entered into in the open market. If the Minister and I make a special bargain which at the time we both consider a reasonable bargain to make, we do not make it in the open market. These are difficult words to interpret. Who is to interpret them? Who is to decide
  20
  whether it is a contract entered into, as it were, at arm's length? As I read the clause, it is not the arbitrator but the Minister who is to decide that. As I read the clause, the arbitrator comes in only when the Minister agrees that the contract was entered into at arm's length. If it was, I cannot see why it should be determined. But it is only then that the arbitrator comes in to decide what the compensation should be. I think the clause is thoroughly bad in principle; but if we are to have a clause of this kind, then certainly the whole business from start to finish ought to be subject to an independent tribunal. I will not say more on that; I am sure that in Committee your Lordships—and nobody is better qualified—will scrutinise that clause very carefully.
  I apologise for being so long, but this is a very important Bill. There is then Clause 4, which deals with superannuation rights in any scheme. This does not apply only with this Parliament; it goes back into the whole history of Parliament in dealing with amalgamations. In any scheme of amalgamation or nationalisation Parliament has been scrupulously careful to see that
  superannuation agreements are honoured. In the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act
  that was done. The then Minister of Fuel and Power, Mr. Shinwell, gave an absolute pledge that this principle would be followed, and great pains were taken to see that the intention was made effective in the Act. If your Lordships will look at Section 37 of the Coal Industry Act, you will see that it provides for regulations, but it lays down that the regulations should be framed so as to secure that where a right to or an expectation of accruer of benefits ceases or is prejudiced by reason of the person ceasing to be employed by his previous employer, the same benefits or substituted benefits not less advantageous shall be provided for under the regulations. We all accept that. That has been common form in our legislation wherever Parliament has sanctioned an amalgamation. It is a Homeric clause. Now the Minister wants to change it.
  I wonder if this is one of the contracts of which the Government seek to be relieved because they are unduly onerous? It may be that Clause 4 ought to run with Clause 3, but it would not have looked quite so well if it had been done like this: "The Coal Board shall have the

  21
  right to be relieved of a contract to honour engagements to their employees if they find them unduly onerous." It looks better to put it in a separate clause. The Minister himself admitted that the new clause may in some cases inure to the advantage of the person who claims an expectation, and in some cases it may be the reverse.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Not the Minister, the Solicitor-General.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg pardon. I must draw the distinction. When the Solicitor-General gets up to address Parliament, speaking as the spokesman of the Government, do I understand that we are not to pay attention to him?
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: No.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then what is the subtle distinction?
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The only point is that if it is the Solicitor-General, he should be so named.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Let me accept the ruling of the Solicitor-General, because I am not quarrelling with what he said. He is quite right; he is a very good lawyer and he told the truth. He said that in some cases the person who claims an expectation is going to be better off, and in other cases he is going to be worse off. There is no doubt about it that in some cases he is going to be worse off. I will come to what the Minister said in a moment, and his declaration is much more open to question.
  If the Minister or the Coal Board consider that someone in the nationalised industry ought to receive better treatment than he would have received from his old company, by all means let them give it, because the Coal Board ought to be a model employer. It is quite right to improve the conditions. But because a good employer in the old days gave better terms than the Coal Board like, and having regard to the fact that Parliament has promised that those terms shall be carried out, why on earth should that man be deprived of the benefits he would have received from the old employer and which Parliament has underwritten firm? I really think that is a most disgraceful thing.
  22
  Now I come to the Minister—and this will not be denied. The Minister of Fuel has made the most extraordinary statement. He admitted that there was a pledge and that it was given effect to by Clause 37, but he said this—and here I quote his words:
  "There was no pledge given to refrain in all circumstances from introducing an amending Bill to clarify the position."
  That is a nice way to express the taking away from a man, an old employee, of a right which he had as against his old employer and a right which Parliament has laid down he should continue to have. That is what is called "clarifying the position"! It is quite true that Parliament is omnipotent and can pass any Act it likes, but hitherto it has been accepted that where the Government enter into an honourable undertaking of this kind, and fortifies it by a statutory enactment, the Government will keep faith. All I can say is that, in the light of this extraordinary ministerial declaration, and the proposal which has been made and now carried through another place, it is open to us to review it here—and it will be our duty to review it. I hope that the workers in other industries now threatened with nationalisation will note, on the authority of the Minister of Fuel, that ministerial pledges, even when backed by legislation, are not worth the paper they are written on.
  I turn for a moment to the happier part of this Bill, Part II, which contains the power to make regulations. I quite agree that new regulations are necessary, but I believe that the right way is to have an up-to-date Act to take the place of the old Act of 1911. That Act was passed as a result of a comprehensive Inquiry. Another Inquiry was set up in 1936 when the Conservative Government were in power, and a full Report was made in 1938. Legislation would have followed but for the war. Indeed, I think it is true that actually before the National Government went out of office we had begun to draft such a Bill. If we must have regulations, we must but I hope that as soon as possible we may do this in the proper way by having a Bill to amend the Act of 1911. I am bound to say that I think it would be a much better Bill than the one which has now been introduced into your Lordships' House.

  THE YANGTSE INCIDENT
  3.46 p.m.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I ask leave of your Lordships to intervene to make a statement on the circumstances in which His Majesty's ships were fired upon in the Yangtse River. The statement is similar to one now being made by the Prime Minister in another place.
  The House will wish to have a full account of the circumstances in which His Majesty's ships were fired upon in the Yangtse River, with grievous casualties and damage. I will first explain what our position is with regard to the civil war in China. It has been repeatedly stated in this House that our policy has been governed by the Moscow Declaration of December, 1945, in which the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union declared a policy of non-intervention in China's internal affairs. In view of the considerable British interests in China and of the presence of large British communities, His Majesty's Government decided some months ago that His Majesty's Ambassador and His Majesty's consular officers in China should remain at their posts, and this
  was announced to the House by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on December 9. We were not alone in the decision to remain at Nanking. Other Powers represented there, with the exception of the Soviet Union, reached the same decision, and there has since been full consultation between the members of the Diplomatic Corps at Nanking.
  In the disturbed conditions which have prevailed in recent months, warships of various Powers have been at Shanghai and Nanking so that in the event of a breakdown of law and order as the result of hostilities they would be able to assist in the evacuation of their nationals. When the Chinese Government decided to move to Canton, it is true that a warning was issued about warships in the Yangtse. Nevertheless it is a fact that since that time the movements of our warships in the Yangtse have taken place with the full knowledge and consent of the National Government of China. I want to make the point, therefore, that, when the incident took place to which I am about to refer, H.M.S. "Amethyst" was
  24
  proceeding on her lawful occasions, and that there was no other properly constituted authority to whom His Majesty's Government were under an obligation to notify her movements even had they been in a position to do so.
  The House will wish to know whether any steps were taken by our authorities in China to make contact with the Communist authorities. Some time has lapsed since Communist forces overran Mukden, Peking and Tientsin where we have consular posts. His Majesty's consular officers at these posts have been endeavouring for some time past to reach day-to-day working arrangements with the local authorities. Their approaches have, however, been rejected on every occasion, without any reason being given for such a rejection. The same policy was followed in rejecting a letter from His Majesty's Consul in Peking about the "Amethyst" when the incident had occurred.
  In conformity with the decision to remain at Nanking, His Majesty's ships had been relieving one another at that port at regular intervals for some months past. On this occasion the object of the passage of H.M.S. "Amethyst" was to relieve H.M.S. "Consort" at Nanking. Opposing Chinese forces had been massed along the banks of the Yangtse for a considerable time and there were repeated rumours for some weeks that the Communists were about to cross the river. H.M.S. "Consort" was already overdue for relief, but this relief was postponed in view of a Communist ultimatum which was due to expire on April 12 and which might have been followed by the crossing of the Yangtse. On April 12 His Majesty's Ambassador learned that the ultimatum had been extended to April 15. The relief had therefore still to be postponed. Only on April 18 was it learned that the final expiry of the ultimatum might lead to the crossing of the Yangtse by the Communist forces on April 21. The necessity for relieving H.M.S. "Consort" as early as possible remained. She was running short of supplies after a long stay at Nanking and in any case a frigate was considered more suitable than a destroyer to be stationed at that port. The Flag Officer therefore decided, with the agreement of His Majesty's Ambassador, that the passage should be timed to allow "Amethyst" to reach Nanking a clear twenty-four hours before

  25
  the expiry of the latest Communist ultimatum. Had there been no incident, "Amethyst" would have reached Nanking on April 20. It was in the light of these known facts that the decision was made for "Amethyst" to sail, and this decision was in my opinion correct.
  Thus early on Tuesday, April 19, the frigate H.M.S. "Amethyst" (Lieutenant-Commander Skinner) sailed f r o m Shanghai for Nanking, wearing the White Ensign and the Union Jack and with the Union Jack painted on her hull. When "Amethyst" reached a point on the Yangtse River some sixty miles from Nanking, at about nine o'clock, Chinese time, in the morning of the 20th, she came under heavy fire from batteries on the north bank, suffered considerable damage and casualties and eventually grounded on Rose Island. After this, the captain decided to land about sixty of her crew, including her wounded, who got ashore by swimming or in sampans, being shelled and machine-gunned as they did so. We know that a large proportion have, with Chinese help, arrived at Shanghai.
  Vice - Admiral Madden, the Flag Officer Second in Command Far Eastern Station, ordered the destroyer H.M.S. "Consort" (Commander Robertson) from Nanking to go to "Amethyst's" assistance, and the frigate H.M.S. "Black Swan" (Captain Jay) from Shanghai to Kiang Yin, forty miles down river from the "Amethyst." "Consort" reached "Amethyst" at about three in the afternoon and was immediately heavily engaged. She found the fire too heavy to approach "Amethyst" and therefore passed her at speed down river. She turned two miles below and again closed "Amethyst" to take her in tow. But she again came under such heavy fire that she was obliged to abandon the attempt, although she answered the shore batteries with her full armament and signalled that she had silenced most of the opposition. Half an hour later her signals ceased, though in fact she was making a second attempt to take "Amethyst" in tow, having turned downstream again. This attempt also failed and she sustained further damage and casualties during which her steering was affected. She therefore had to continue downstream out of the firing area.
  Meanwhile, the cruiser H.M.S. "London" (Captain Cazalet), wearing
  26
  the flag of Flag Officer Second in Command, was also proceeding up the Yangtse at best speed. The three ships "London," "Black Swan," and "Consort" met at Kiang Yin at about eight that evening. It was found that "Consort" was extensively damaged; she was ordered to proceed to Shanghai to land her dead and wounded and effect repairs. At about two o'clock in the morning of the 21st, the "Amethyst" succeeded in refloating herself by her own efforts and anchored two miles above Rose Island. She could go no further, as her chart was destroyed. Her hull was holed in several places, her captain severely wounded, her first lieutenant wounded, and her doctor killed. There were only four unwounded officers left, and one telegraphist to carry out all wireless communications.
  Later the same morning the "London" and the "Black Swan" endeavoured to close the "Amethyst," but met with heavy fire causing some casualties. The fire was, of course, returned, but the Flag Officer then decided that it would not be possible to bring the damaged "Amethyst" down river without further serious loss of life in all ships; he therefore ordered the "London" and "Black Swan" to return to Kiang Yin. At Kiang Yin they were fired upon by batteries, and suffered considerable casualties and damage. Both ships afterwards proceeded to Shanghai to land their dead and wounded and to effect repairs. That afternoon a naval and a Royal Air Force doctor, with medical supplies and charts, were flown
  by a Sunderland aircraft of the Royal Air Force to the "Amethyst." Both the aircraft and the "Amethyst" were fired upon. The ship was hit, but the Sunderland managed to transfer the R.A.F. doctor and some medical supplies before being forced to take off. The "Amethyst" then took shelter in a creek.
  During the night of the 21st-22nd, "Amethyst" succeeded in evacuating a further batch of her wounded to a nearby town. After doing so, she moved ten miles up river under cover of darkness, though under rifle fire from the banks, and again anchored; she then completed the landing of all her more seriously wounded, including her captain. I regret to say that this very gallant officer, who

  27
  had insisted on remaining with his ship up to this time, died of his wounds soon after. There remained on board three Royal Navy officers, one Royal Air Force doctor, fifty-two ratings and eight Chinese. At about this time Lieutenant-Commander Kerans, the Assistant Naval Attaché at Nanking, reached the ship and assumed command.
  Another courageous effort to reach "Amethyst" was made by the R.A.F. in a Sunderland on the afternoon of the 22, but the aircraft was driven off by artillery fire without succeeding in making contact. The "Amethyst" then moved a further four miles up river. She was in close touch with the Flag Officer, and after a number of courses had been considered, it was decided that she should remain where she was. Perhaps I may at this point anticipate two questions which may possibly be asked: first, how was it that His Majesty's ships suffered such extensive damage and casualties; and second, why they were not able to silence the opposing batteries and fight their way through. In answer to the first, I would only say that warships are not designed to operate in rivers against massed artillery and infantry sheltered by reeds and mudbanks. The Communist forces appear to have been concentrated in considerable strength and are reported as being lavishly equipped with howitzers, medium artillery and field guns. The above facts also provide much of the answer to the second question, only I would add this. The Flag Officer's policy throughout was designed only to rescue H.M.S. "Amethyst" and to avoid unnecessary casualties. There was no question of a punitive expedition and His Majesty's ships fired only to silence the forces firing against them.
  I will at this point briefly summarise the losses and damage which resulted. The casualties were: H.M.S. "London," 13 killed, 15 wounded; H.M.S. "Consort," 10 killed, 4 seriously wounded H.M.S. "Amethyst," 19 killed, 27 wounded; H.M.S. "Black Swan," 7 wounded. In addition, 12 ratings are still missing. Of the damage to the ships, the "London" suffered the most severely, having been holed repeatedly in her hull and upper works. The damage to the "Consort" and the "Black
  28
  Swan" was less serious. "London" and the "Black Swan" have already completed their emergency repairs. The "Amethyst" suffered severe damage but was repaired by the efforts of her own crew to be capable of a speed of seventeen knots.
  When H.M.S. "Amethyst" was fired upon by Communist forces, His Majesty's Ambassador instructed His Majesty's Consular Officer in charge at Peking to communicate to the highest competent Chinese Communist authority, by whatever means possible, a message informing them of this and seeking the issue of immediate instructions by them to their military commanders along the Yangtse to desist from such firing. A subsequent message emphasised the urgent need of medical attention of the casualties and reiterated the request for instructions to prevent further firing upon these ships of the Royal Navy engaged in peaceful and humanitarian tasks. The local Communist authorities, however, refused to accept the Consul's letters.
  At this time Mr. Edward Youde, a Third Secretary in His Majesty's Foreign Service who has a good knowledge of Chinese, volunteered to try and contact the Communist forces north of Pukou in the hope of reaching some commanding officer with sufficient authority to stop the firing. His Majesty's Ambassador agreed to this attempt, and Mr. Youde passed through the Nationalist lines on the night of April 21. Thanks to his courage and determination, Mr. Youde succeeded in reaching the forward headquarters of the People's Liberation Army in the Pukou area on April 23. He described the situation as he knew it when he left Nanking on April 21, and pointed out to them the peaceful and humanitarian nature of the mission of H.M.S. "Amethyst," and requested that she be allowed to proceed to Nanking or Shanghai without further molestation. Their headquarters took the line that clearance had not been obtained from the People's Liberation Army, and that she had entered the war area. They also complained of heavy casualties incurred by their troops as a result of fire from His Majesty's ships. They refused to admit justification of self-defence. After consulting higher authority, the headquarters stated that in the circumstances they would be prepared to allow the ship

  29
  to proceed to Nanking, but only on condition that she should assist the People's Liberation Army to cross the Yangtse. Such a condition was obviously unacceptable.
  My attention has been drawn to a communiqué broadcast by the Communists which said that on the date in question warships on the Yangtse opened fire to prevent its crossing by Communist forces. It further stated that it was not until the following day that they learned that these ships were not all Chinese but that four British ships were among them. The Communists state that their forces suffered 252 casualties as a result of this firing, and claim that His Majesty's Government have directly participated in the Chinese civil war by firing on Communist positions. These claims are, of course, so far as they relate to His Majesty's Government or the Royal Navy, as fantastic as they are unfounded.
  If there was any initial misunderstanding as to the nationality of H.M.S. "Amethyst." this would have been speedily resolved had the authorities in Peking acted on His Majesty's Ambassador's message. Moreover, had the Communist authorities objected in the past to the movement of British ships on the Yangtse, it was always open to them to raise these through our consular authorities in North China. It is the fact that for reasons best known to themselves the Communists have failed to notify any foreign authority present in areas which they have occupied of the channels through which contact can be maintained, and that they have rejected all communications made to them. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government can only reserve their position.
  The House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy with the relatives of all those who have been killed or wounded in this action, and in expressing admiration of the courage of all those who took part in it. Five names deserve special tribute. Lieutenant-Commander Skinner, R.N., the captain of the "Amethyst," behaved with the utmost gallantry till he succumbed to his wounds. The first lieutenant, Lieutenant J. C. Weston, refused to leave the "Amethyst," although dangerously wounded, until relieved in command by Lieutenant-Commander Kerans fifty-six
  30
  hours later. Telegraphist J. L. French showed superlative devotion to duty. He was the only telegraphist left in the "Amethyst" after the early hours of April 21; and from then onwards his efforts kept the ship in almost continuous communication with Shanghai. The name should also be mentioned of Flight-Lieutenant K. H. Letford, D.S.O., D.F.C., who landed a Sunderland aircraft under fire to convey the naval and R.A.F. doctors to "Amethyst." The fifth name is that of Mr. Youde, whose one-man mission through the Communist armies I have already mentioned.
  Without a doubt many other cases of bravery and devotion will be revealed when all the facts are known. But we already have ample evidence that the conduct of the whole ship's company of H.M.S. "Amethyst" was beyond all praise, though a considerable proportion were young sailors under fire for the first time. We have had reports of seamen and marines remaining at their task for up to twenty-four hours, though badly wounded, and of men declining to have their wounds treated until cases they considered more urgent had been dealt with. I have heard too that in H.M.S. "London" and "Black Swan," when there was a possibility of volunteers being flown to "Amethyst," there was almost acrimonious rivalry for selection to take on this heroic task.
  I should mention that the United States naval authorities at Shanghai placed their resources unstintingly at our disposal, and the kindness and help of the British communities at Shanghai have been beyond all praise. Finally, the Chinese Nationalist forces in the Chinkiang area were most helpful in providing medical aid and stores which they could ill afford. The House will join with me in expressing our gratitude to all of these. I should like, in concluding this statement, to pay a tribute to the British communities in China, who have shown such steadfast behaviour in the difficult conditions in which they find themselves, and whose decision to remain in China in spite of the uncertainties created by the civil war is in accordance with the best British tradition.
  The House is now in full possession of the facts known to His Majesty's Government, and we shall, of course, continue to keep the House informed of

  31
  developments as they occur. It will be realised that the situation is at present very fluid, but if, at a later stage, there is a general desire for a debate on this matter, I am sure that this can be considered through the usual channels.
  4.15 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, your Lordships will have awaited with keen anxiety the statement which has just been made by the First Lord. On one thing we can all be agreed—namely, our deep sympathy with the relatives of more than forty officers and men who have lost their lives, and in our admiration and appreciation of every officer and man concerned, either in the ships of His Majesty's Navy or in the aircraft of the Royal Air Force, who have made such gallant endeavours to go to the rescue of the stricken ship. There we can all be at one. We shall certainly have to debate the First Lord's statement at a later stage, in the light of further study and possibly of fuller knowledge, but I am bound at this moment to make some comments and to put some questions to the First Lord—
  LORD STRABOLGI: On a point of order, I think we ought to be quite clear as to our procedure on this Government statement which I understand is open to questions. I did not understand that it is open to a debate. I do not in any way want to stop the noble Viscount putting his remarks, but I think it should also be possible to reply to them.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly. My object in making the observations was to elicit a reply. I understand that it has been the traditional procedure in this House, as in another place, that when a statement of cardinal importance is made by His Majesty's Government the Leaders of Parties, and indeed other members of the House should make such observations as they think right and proper. If it were necessary to put myself in order, the matter would be very simple—I could move the adjournment of the debate, and then withdraw the Motion. But perhaps I may now proceed, I think strictly in accordance with precedent, and I am sure with the wishes of all my noble friends, to make one or two comments and to put my questions to the First Lord.
  In a long, but not too long, statement (because we all wanted the facts). we
  32
  have heard from the First Lord a factual account of what happened on the Yangtse River and in Nanking. We have heard about the policy of the Flag Officer on the spot, and the policy of action of His Majesty's Ambassador in Nanking. I waited to hear, but did not hear, what had been the policy of His Majesty's Government, of the Minister of Defence and, indeed, of the First Lord himself in this matter. Here is a situation in which we are not, or should not be, concerned only or mainly with the action of the men on the spot—I speak in the presence of many who like myself have been Service Ministers or Chiefs of Staff. Here was a situation where essentially Ministers and the Government were concerned to give their advice and direction to the men on the spot. It is with the action, or inaction, of His Majesty's Ministers that we are concerned. It must have been plain from the moment that it was known, that great Communist forces, armed with weapons which had been supplied to the Nationalists through years of war, and which had been taken from them, ably led and heavily armed, were advancing upon the whole line of the Yangtse. Quite obviously the attack was going to be on Nanking, to cross the Yangtse and cut off Shanghai.
  My Lords, my first question is: At what moment did His Majesty's Ministers know, or should they have known, that this advance on the Yangtse was going to take place? It was not a surprise move; it was not a question of a sudden ambush. The whole great advance was moving across, first to occupy the bank and so to command the river, which is the greatest waterway of China. When did they first know? In the light of that I ask: What appraisal did His Majesty's Government make of that situation and what instructions as a result of their appreciation did they give? Not only were they the responsible people to give instructions but they were in much the best position to give them. What appraisal did they give to their officers on the spot, either ambassadorial or naval? It was said that there was an armistice or truce. It does not seem to me that that was any concern of His Majesty's Ministers. This was an armistice between the two warring factions in China, upon which, surely, it was extraordinarily unwise of His Majesty's Government to place any

  33
  reliance. The truce might be ended at any moment, and the fighting might break out again.
  Then I ask this. It was known that the Communist armies were advancing upon, and would soon occupy, the whole length of the Yangtse River, and would thus become the responsible people. I am not concerned with the technicalities of what was the recognised Government; here we are dealing with terrible facts of war and fighting, and I believe that we should have been concerned with the question of whether they were people who were likely to put us in peril. If a ship was to be sent up or down the Yangtse, what attempt was made (this is not clear from the statement which the First Lord has made, and of which he was good enough to give me a copy) to approach the Communist leaders and to obtain their assent, or at any rate an undertaking that ships would not be molested if they were sent along the Yangtse?
  Having just heard the statement for the first time, I must apologise for not putting my questions in perfect sequence, but I think they are very relevant questions. I would preface my next question by speaking of the "Amethyst" going up the river. As I understand it, a ship had been kept at Nanking—it was, I believe, a destroyer, the "Consort"—on the chance that it might have to be used to evacuate the seventy British people in that city. That, I think, is right. May I ask why that ship was kept there? Surely, if it was the intention of His Majesty's Government, maybe in agreement with the United States and other Governments, to keep their Ambassador and their staff in Nanking until the Communists were at the gates, and even possibly after the Communists had entered, what was the sense of keeping the "Consort" there? That seems to me a very important question. Surely, it was not the natural or the obvious way to evacuate people from Nanking.
  I am told that aeroplanes have been regularly flying into Nanking. If you wish to evacuate people rapidly, as has been clone in the case of a number of other places, the practical and quick way to get them out is to put them in aeroplanes, not to put them on a destroyer to sail down the Yangtse River with 500,000 Communists entrenched with their bat-
  34
  teries along the banks of that river. I ask why, when the authorities knew of this danger, and knew what was taking place, the "Consort" was kept there. Why was she not sent down the river to Shanghai? If communication had to be maintained, as it had, and if the possibility had to be envisaged of flying out the very limited number of people in Nanking, why was that not left to be carried out by aircraft? That should have been done earlier, I suggest.
  Then I would ask the noble Viscount the First Lord to answer this question specifically. He told us, I think, that at an earlier stage we, the United States and the French, each had a ship at Nanking. But, apparently, we alone retained our ship there.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I shall be very glad if the noble Viscount can get this clear. It is not at all clear to me at present what was the situation when the "Amethyst" was sent up the river. The "Consort" was, at that time, as I understand it, at Nanking and had been there for some time. The "Amethyst" was sent up to relieve the "Consort." I understood from what my noble friend said just now that the "Consort" was kept there after consultation with the French and the United States authorities, in order to deal with any situation that might arise.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is exactly what I am trying to bring out. It is difficult to follow, but what I understand happened is this. Originally, there were the "Consort," a United States ship of some size and a French ship in Nanking. That is what I understood. But in the critical period the only Allied ship which remained at Nanking was the "Consort"—I am not sure if I am right about that, but that is what I understand. If that is so, it makes it all the more extraordinary that the "Consort" should have been kept there. Then there was apparently a time when the Chinese Government decided to move to Canton—I am not sure what the date was. It is true that a warning was issued about warships in the Yangtse. At what date was that warning given, by whom was it given, and what effect did it have? Presumably it was communicated immediately to His Majesty's Government. What action did they take upon it?

  35
  Then I would ask this. Why was the "Amethyst" sent up? I know that the "Consort" was overdue for relief. As I have said, by all the canons of prudence and common sense the wise thing to do when this danger threatened, it seems to me, would have been not to relieve her by another ship sent up to run the gauntlet of these batteries but to send her down from a place where she could be no possible use, and to rely on aeroplanes. Why was the Amethyst "sent up? And why, if in the face of all these dangers the "Amethyst" and other ships were sent were they sent up without air cover? I think this is a point of vital importance. It is elementary to-day that if ships are sent into a risky position like this, air cover should be provided for them.
  The noble Viscount the First Lord has stated that these ships were not suitable for engaging in hostilities in a river. Everyone knows that you cannot deflect the guns of a cruiser to fire on batteries hidden in the reeds beside a river. That is elementary. But if you are unwise enough to send ships they can be given a good deal of protection by means of aircraft. Why were aircraft not sent for protection purposes in this case? If it be said that there were no aircraft on the spot, then I am bound to say that that cannot be a responsibility of the men on the spot. That is the responsibility of His Majesty's Government.
  LORD AMMON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but the Royal Commission is now due and the Commons are waiting.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will finish what I have to say in a few moments. I was asking why were not aircraft available for that purpose. Finally, I would say this. These are questions which I am sure the First Lord will answer now, but I would ask him again, as I did at the beginning, when did His Majesty's Government, in the Ministry of Defence, in the Admiralty, in the Cabinet, consider this matter? What action did they take? What instructions did they give to the men on the spot in what was essentially the responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers?

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION
  4.30 p.m.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

  Juries,

  Army and Air Force (Annual),

  Consular Conventions,

  Agricultural Wages (Scotland),

  Clyde Navigation (Superannuation) Order, Confirmation,

  Wandsworth and District Gas,

  Hurst Park Race Course.

  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  THE YANGTSE INCIDENT
  4.46 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, we on these Benches would also wish to express our extreme admiration for the valour and fortitude shown by the officers and men of the four ships of His Majesty's Navy which have recently been engaged in these troubles on the Yangtse. We would also wish to express our deepest sympathy with the relatives of those who have fallen, doing their duty, as the Navy always does. I very much hope that we shall not have a debate on this subject this afternoon; I do not think we have sufficient information. I do not wish to enter into controversy with the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, although there are some things he said which I cannot possibly accept. To-day I would like to confine myself to two questions which I think are legitimate. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will not think I am entering into a debate. The noble Viscount the First Lord in his statement said that in the light of certain known facts a decision was made for the "Amethyst" to sail. I would like to ask him by whom that decision was taken. I

  37
  think that is a legitimate point to make. The noble Viscount said that, in his view, the decision was a correct one. I do not think we are in a position to-day to judge whether it was correct or not. It is for that purpose that I would ask him whether he will not consent to publish a short White Paper giving the exchange of views and information between what I may call the regional authorities—namely, His Majesty's Ambassador and the Commander-in-Chief of the Station—and His Majesty's Government, so that we can arrive at our own conclusion as to where the ultimate responsibility lies. Having obtained that information, we could then proceed to hold a full debate.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I could not agree more with what has just fallen from the lips of the noble Earl. The whole of this procedure is grossly disorderly. The statement made by my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is subject to questions, like any other Parliamentary statement, but we have embarked on what are really the beginnings of a full-dress debate. I thought the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was not only out of order but thoroughly mischievous. I want to say that as plainly as I can. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, we are not in possession of the whole facts my noble friend the First Lord is not in possession of the whole facts; nobody can be. It is a most confused and delicate situation out there. At least, we should have reserved judgment until we had the whole facts before us.
  I do want to say this, however, disorderly though I may be. Our warships have been sailing the Yangtse Kiang for generations. I have myself sailed through Chunking on more than one occasion. Our warships have flown the White Ensign on the Yangtse Kiang for the preservation of order and the succour of our nationals in need for over fifty years. It is perfectly true that, by recent arrange-merits, we always notify the appropriate authorities when our ships are sailing up there. This apparently was done, and H.M.S. "Amethyst" had every right to proceed to Nanking, and every right to come back again when she had done her work, as had the other warships. This act of firing upon His Majesty's ships was either a confusion or a mistake—as I hope was the case, because they may
  38
  have thought she was a Nationalist warship flying other colours which is always possible in war—or it was deliberate. If it was deliberate, a most serious situation arises. We cannot afford to have our Flag affronted and our seamen murdered in this way, especially in Asia, without taking the most serious notice of it and doing our utmost to obtain redress, which I am confident His Majesty's Government will do.
  In those circumstances, this is not the time for sniping at His Majesty's Government, as the acting Leader of the Opposition has done to-day, and asking stupid questions, if he will allow me to say so, about air cover. If he knows the merest facts about the situation, he knows perfectly well that air cover is not only not available—
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Why not?
  LORD STRABOLGI: Is it suggested that we should send a punitive expedition up the river? That is what it amounts to.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My suggestion was that as we knew that this situation was likely to develop three months ago, we ought to have had aircraft in support.
  LORD STRABOLGI: That, indeed, is a case of being wise after the event! The strength of the "Amethyst's" position was that she was proceeding legitimately on her proper occasions on a peaceful mission, and to have sent air cover would have been provocative and asking for trouble. Naturally, one side or the other might suppose that it was a hostile expedition aiding their enemies. We would have put ourselves out of court at once. The whole idea is utterly fantastic. This is a part of the river where the banks narrow and which has always been known as highly dangerous. We had a similar decision to take nearly fifty years ago at the time of the Boxer Rebellion. We did not know the attitude of the Imperial troops and Government up river, but we had to send warships to protect our people at Nanking and Hankow, and we sent them up at the risk of being fired upon. I was on the station at the time, and I remember the difficult decisions which had to be taken. The ships were not fired upon, and they carried out their mission. They undoubtedly saved a great deal of suffering

  39
  by their presence. No doubt if the "Amethyst" had got through she would have saved a great deal of the confusion and trouble which has since taken place at Nanking with the fall of the city.
  In view of the most intricate situation that has arisen on the Yangtse Kiang, with a recognised Government on the one bank and an unrecognised Government on the other, with whom we have, with the best will in the world, been unable to reach an understanding, His Majesty's Government desires a little support and sympathy, and I had hoped to hear a little more support and sympathy also for the Flag Officer on the Station. He had to make difficult decisions, and I prefer to trust his judgment rather than what I believe are the unpremeditated criticisms of the noble Viscount. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, we must of course await the full facts; but, whatever comes of this, there has been a grievous loss of life. We all sympathise with the relatives of the officers and men who have suffered. The Navy has carried out its very ancient and honourable traditions in this matter and deserves every support. Whatever happens in the end, we must demand full redress for this outrage—for there is no other word to describe it—for the insult to our Flag and to our warships.
  4.55 p.m.
  EARL BEATTY: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything at any great length, but I should like to ask the First Lord one question. In view of the fact that one of the greatest lessons of the war was that a fleet, to be effective, had to be a composite fleet—which includes aircraft carriers as well as cruisers and destroyers—when was the decision made that an aircraft carrier should be withdrawn from what is quite an important fleet, the Far Eastern Fleet, and why was that decision ever taken? Does the noble Viscount not consider that, if an aircraft carrier had been on the spot, it might have been easier to extricate the "Amethyst" from the position she was in? It is all very well for the noble Lord to say it would be punitive to do it, but we did send some ships to attempt to rescue them, and if we had had aircraft I feel that the task could have been accomplished more easily than by
  40
  placing our ships in that dangerous position. If the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, agrees with that assumption, why are we not now taking steps to send an aircraft carrier out there, in case any future incident should arise, perhaps around Hong Kong? Let us try to look ahead and get an aircraft carrier there, rather than send a cruiser, which I understand from the Press is being sent to reinforce the Fleet.
  4.57 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, as there is no Motion before the House, I must ask leave of your Lordships to reply to some of the questions which have been put, although I am not going to follow the very bad example of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in debating this matter. Indeed, a debate on the statement was never visualised, and it would be entirely at variance with whatever Standing Orders there may be, or, if not Standing Orders, with the tradition of the House. Indeed, the noble Viscount himself in his opening remarks said that we must have a debate at a later stage. He then went on to initiate a debate. I am not going to be drawn, but I would like to reply to some of the questions which he has put. In the first place, he mentioned in his speech that the statement did not contain any policy of His Majesty's Government, only the policy of the Minister of Defence and the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect, may I say that if the noble Viscount reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will find that I said the statement contains what was done by the Flag Officer on the spot, but no statement of what was the policy of His Majesty's Government, the Minister of Defence or the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  VISCOUNT HALL: That makes little difference to what I am going to say, because it is evident that the noble Viscount did not read even the second paragraph of my statement. Indeed, he could not have listened very attentively to what I said. In the statement I said—and the House will pardon my quoting it again—
  "In view of the considerable British interests in China and of the presence of large British communities, His Majesty's Government decided some months ago that His Majesty's Ambassador and His Majesty's consular officers

  41
  in China should remain at their posts, and this was announced by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place on December 9. We were not alone in the decision.…"
  That was the policy which was laid down by His Majesty's Government: that even if Nanking were taken by the Communists, His Majesty's Ambassador should remain, as he is remaining, and that the consular officers should also remain where they have been, and still are, in parts of the territory which have been taken by the Communists. One would imagine from the speech of the noble Viscount that we were at war with the Communists in China. We are not at war with them.
  In reply to the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, I would say that had "Amethyst" reached Nanking she would have been there to relieve the "Consort" and would have stayed at Nanking. That was the policy of His Majesty's Government. In reply to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, as to who took the decision to which I referred in my statement, I may say that consultations were held between His Majesty's Ambassador at Nanking and the Flag Officer Second in Command, and their decision was based upon the policy of His Majesty's Government, and upon instructions that ships were to proceed, as they had been proceeding from Shanghai to Nanking during this difficult period without being molested. As one noble Lord rightly said, we have not the whole of the facts before us. There are certain facts that have been brought to our notice today, concerning which further investigation will have to take place. We ought not to make things more difficult than they are at the present time, when the interests of thousands of British people still in China have to be considered. These people, or a large number of them, are in places which are under the control of the Communist Government; and speeches such as that made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, are liable to make the position of these people more difficult than it is at present.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: I hope the noble Viscount does not think that I have been guilty of that.
  VISCOUNT HALL: No, I should like to express appreciation of the most helpful
  42
  remarks of the noble Earl, made as they are out of experience and knowledge which he has of situations perhaps not always as difficult as this but still difficult. We appreciate the noble Earl's wise counsel. The situation in China is at present most fluid and as I mentioned in the course of my statement, this matter will be the occasion of a debate if necessary; but at the present Lime sufficient facts are not in the hands of His Majesty's Government.
  I wish to conclude by expressing deepest sympathy with the families and relatives of the men who have lost their lives, and with the wounded and their relatives. I wish also to acknowledge the helpful remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and to thank them for not making a difficult situation more difficult than it is at present.

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  5.3 p.m.
  Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, it falls upon me to resume the debate on the coal industry with which this afternoon's proceedings in this House started. Had the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who introduced the Second Reacting of this Bill been in his place, I should have liked to say that I do not think the Bill very worthy of the talent he displayed in moving the Second Reading. On the noble Lord's own admission, the Bill appears to be a very small and rather indifferent object. If the noble Lord in due course returns to his place perhaps I may, with your Lordships' permission, repeat some of the remarks which I am about to make.
  I feel sure that your Lordships will give this Bill the Second Reading asked for, and will go on to discuss some of the clauses in greater detail on the Committee stage. My own personal inclination, I am afraid, would be not to accept the Bill at all, on account of the very trumpery nature of the amendments to the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act which it seeks to introduce. It is not that we on these Benches do not feel that an Amending Bill is necessary—indeed it would be surprising to any of us if a

  43
  major Act nationalising an industry such as the coal industry did not already stand in need of amendment to a much greater extent than is contained in this Coal Industry Bill. What we feel is that the amendments now proposed should have been allowed to stand over, pending the major amendments which must in-inevitably come in dealing with the organisation of the Coal Board and the provincial bodies which depend on that Board, rather than that there should have been introduced a Bill which, by general admission, is only a stopgap and is, in fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, himself said, a niggling piece of legislation.
  At best, I think all that can be said about the Bill is that Part II is necessary. Of Part I, I think all that can properly be said is that two of the four clauses to which the noble Lord referred seek to do something which cannot redound to the credit of this Government and could not to any other, for they seek to give the Coal Board and the Government power to break contracts. That is what Clauses 3 and 4 amount to. The matters with which they deal were considered at the time of the original Act, and all that we have here, as a contribution to the better ordering of the coal industry, is a Bill containing two clauses seeking to give power to break contracts. This, surely, is not very creditable.
  So far as the other two clauses are concerned, the original conception of a Coal Board, or of the Board of any other nationalised industry—a Board which is composed of functional members with a functional channel of communication from a person on the regional to a person on the area organisation—is one which in business is fundamentally wrong, and which has always been found to be wrong. After all, we need not look any further afield than the structure of Cabinet government in this country to see that this organisation is wholly divorced from our tradition. The members of a Cabinet are responsible for what the Government do—just as the board of a big corporation are responsible for what that corporation does. I believe this set-up to be only a palliative, a confession of weakness and error in the past set-up of the Coal Board. We on this side of the House believe it to be a confession of failure.
  44
  Clause 2, which deals with an extension of certain powers—notably the power for the Coal Board to be represented abroad—does not, in itself, seem to me to be a particularly mischievous proposal—though, on the wording of the clause, it could become mischievous if the Coal Board tried to compete with other people who know foreign bunkering and foreign trade better than they are likely to do. But, in the main, as I understand, it is an attempt to enable the National Coal Board to be represented abroad, as for instance the Rheinish-Westphalian Coal Board was represented in one foreign place, and as the Polish Export Coal institution is represented in foreign countries. As such, it does not seem to me to be per se mischievous. The main criticism is that this was a subject which was debated and was turned down when the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act was introduced. This, therefore, represents an attempted revision of what was then admittedly the will of Parliament.
  As such it seems to me to need a little more explanation of the reasons and purports for which the powers are sought than were given us by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who moved the Second Reading. Indeed, except in so far as he talked about the composition of the Board, the impression that I derived from his speech was that he sought to justify the absence of a greater amendment of the 1946 Act rather than the inclusion of the four particular clauses in Part I of this Bill. He did not give us—or, if he did, I am afraid I did not appreciate it—any statement or explanation of precisely what the Coal Board or the Government wish to do, or would wish to do if the powers under Clause 2 were extended, as it has been asked that they should be.
  On the other two clauses, I can only repeat what I said before the noble Lord came into the Chamber. In what I think he himself described as a "niggling Bill," it seems to me a pity to introduce into two out of four clauses powers to break contracts. That in itself is undesirable. It must lead to a good deal of criticism, notably where the termination of a contract involving pension and superannuation rights is concerned. It does not taste or look nice, and I am sure that it will not smell nice. Of the Bill as a whole, therefore, I can say only this. I

  45
  regret that the amendments now proposed were not held over until the major amendments which will be required in the Coal Act come to be considered and are introduced. I have heard of no plea of urgency for any of the four amendments contained in Part I. As for Part II, surely there also it would have been better to hold over the amendment necessary in the 1911 Act to some period when the whole conception of the 1911 Act could be brought into greater relation to present-day requirements.
  5.14 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I first pay a humble tribute to the delightful maiden speech we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. I have seldom heard a better one in this House. I have no doubt that he will make many more and remain a target for our shafts for a long time. It was a delightful mixture of modesty and boldness. I think he will agree that anybody who tries to interpret to this House "expectation of accruer" is a bold man. I also think that anybody who shows such touching faith in the capabilities of the Coal Board is also a man of some degree of boldness. Members of the Party opposite are apt to think that we on this side of the House rejoice in the difficulties of the Coal Board. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Coal is the only raw material of any consequence that we have in this country and we hate to see it mishandled, as it is being mishandled now. In my youth the miner was the aristocrat of British labour. He and his whippet lived on the fat of the land and, if he had a good manager as a wife, his family did not do too badly either. He went down the pit when he liked, and when he wanted to go to cricket or to the races he stayed out without any accusations of absenteeism. When he wanted to get some "brass" to buy the "missus" a piano or a fur coat, he worked very hard. He was a free man.
  Between the wars his position deteriorated. His leaders told him it was a result of the hard-hearted, wicked capitalists, but of course it is nothing of the sort. The real villains of the piece are the innocent people who saved their money, dug holes in the stony deserts of the world and in their innocence thought they were conferring a benefit on mankind by producing a cheaper and
  46
  cleaner fuel In fact, coal was a contracting industry and the miners' leaders, instead of co-operating with the employers to see how production could be increased and the redundancy managed in an orderly fashion, merely went round preaching hate and nationalisation. Now they have nationalisation, what of it? The miner has exchanged boss for board. The worst bosses die, but boards go on for ever and he is no forrarder. He sees a horde of officials going round in cars, which they park at the pithead at places where he ought to be able to park his car.
  How did this trouble start? Private capitalist enterprise was managed by
  technicians responsible to directors, in turn responsible to the proprietors, the shareholders. The directors, generally living on or near the spot, men of local as well as wide knowledge, were responsible for policy decisions, but, above all, they had the residual function of sacking and appointing the management. The former Minister of Fuel and Power knew nothing whatsoever of the functions or character of directors, save as "Aunt Sallies" for his week-end speeches. When he was faced with the task of producing this new State organisation, he determined that nothing which smacked of a director in any shape or form should play any part in it. As a result, he inevitably had a tendency towards centralisation. This was clinched when he called in a most eminent civil servant, a master of centralisation, to help design the machinery. That appointment at first sight might be thought sensible. What organisation is of such a size as to parallel this coal monopoly? Surely, only that of one of the Armed Services. Those Services had just won a great war, and it was asked, why not reproduce their organisation for the coal monopoly? That was superficially admirable but, on second thoughts, absolutely erroneous, because the peace-time organisation of the Forces is designed purely to stop action; it is to stop the Minister being plagued in Parliament about Private Blogg's pay and allowances. As soon as war starts, freedom has to be given to the commander in the field to override all the rules of the system, and that is how we managed to win the war.
  The coal monopoly has precisely the same objectives; it has positive objec-

  47
  tives. It has to dig more coal, above all to produce cheaper coal and cleaner coal. Therefore, if it is to do any good the responsibility must be passed right down the line to the commander in the field—in this case the pit manager or the area manager. He must have complete authority over all his troops and, what is more, there must be no by-passing. Some of his subordinates must not receive their commands from divisions or areas or Hobart House behind his back. Unless he has complete power, the whole organisation is hopeless. An organisation based on the Civil Service, then, is obviously quite wrong for this great monopoly, and yet a civil servant who could have been experienced only in such an organisation was the man called in to set it up. So the monopoly started off on the wrong, foot. The Minister knows it is wrong. But he does not need this Bill to put it right—he can sack the whole Coal Board to-morrow if he wants to; he has the power under the 1946 Act.
  Clause 1 in this Bill merely tinkers at the thing. This mishandling has imposed a heavy burden on the community. Coal is virtually three times its pre-war price and much dirtier. Moreover, to keep it down to that price there is an export cess of about £1 a ton in addition. No wonder foreign countries ask that their sterling should be convertible, or try to pay us out in meat for what we take out of them in coal. That is the burden which lies heavy upon us at the moment. Clause 2 I believe can throw a serious burden on our diplomacy in the future. Once upon a time I read the Historical Tripos at Cambridge, and amongst the subjects was International Law, a subject I found rather uninteresting, but in the outcome I was lucky for I had the stock question, the subject of belligerent rights under a submarine blockade. Suppose those examiners could have dreamed that a British Government would not only set up a coal monopoly, but would give that monopoly power to extend its operations beyond the seas. What wonderful scope for questions in the field of international law that would raise; what permutations and combinations—and what complications! It is the Foreign Office who will have to get us out of those complications. I wonder if they were consulted when this Bill was drafted. I very much doubt it. The tendency of State monopoly
  48
  is always to cast covetous eyes on any profitable ancillary enterprise which is being carried on by private individuals—rather like the child who rushes to pick up the lump of snow. State monopoly hopes to bring the profit of the ancillary in to redress its burden of loss, but, like the child, once it gets that profit into its hands, it will find it will melt away.
  Time is short, and Clauses 3 and 4 will obviously be dealt with more suitably on Committee. But there is a point which has not been included in the Bill, which seems to be rather more important than some of the things in the Bill—namely, the question of workmen's compensation. The National Coal Board have taken over the administration of the liabilities for workmen's compensation of the colliery companies, but they cannot take over the legal liability without some statutory authority, and until they do so the colliery mutual associations cannot go into liquidation. Therefore, I suggest to His Majesty's Government that perhaps it would be advisable to draft and introduce something to that end on the Committee stage; otherwise I do not see what are the real objects of the Bill. The Minister has the power to re-organise the entire Coal Board tomorrow without this Bill. With the examples of his colleagues before him, I should have thought an astute young man like the Minister would at all costs have avoided extending the monopoly beyond our shores.
  I should have thought that the long-term contracts under Clause 3 could have
  been honourably dealt with by some perfectly legal process. As for Clause 4, I know the Minister received a sound education in moral principles up to the age of 18½. What has happened to him since then I do not know. Probably he has not read the clause. The real answer is that the Minister and the Ministry have bitten off more than they can chew. They have got coal, electricity and gas on their plates and they have lost the power and the time to think. It has been said that too much government is the enemy of good government, and I only hope that that will not be the epitaph and the doom of democracy in this country.
  5.27 p.m.
  LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I have only one very general point that I want to make and I will endeavour to

  49
  be as brief as I possibly can. We cannot get away from the fact that there are far too many rumours, doubts and misgivings as to what is going on within the coal industry and what is going on with regard to the service that that industry is giving to industry in general in this country. At any rate, I think it would be fair to say that the average person who thinks about these things cannot feel at ease in his mind as regards the present set-up. I do not in any way want to be unfair about an organisation which may well be said to be still in its youth and finding its feet nor, certainly, do I want to be unfair to individual members of the National Coal Board who, after all, have tremendous problems to tackle and also have very onerous responsibilities to the country as a whole. But I think it is fair to say that there are ominous signs, and those ominous signs and comments that one hears often come from the most unexpected quarters.
  We find important members of the National Coal Board resigning we find that the industry is at pains to make a financial success until the price of coal has been raised to a level which must inevitably be an embarrassment to industry as a whole, more particularly so when we find increasing competition from other coal exporting countries such as Poland, the United States of America and the Ruhr. In debates, we have been told that the absolute minimum targets that have been set are so-and-so. Yet we find that these targets are never reached. On the subject of the quality of coal, a good deal is still said, but I personally am inclined to think that there is less justification now for criticism than there was formerly. The information which I have is that the quality of coal is improving.
  Perhaps more important than any of these factors is the point that of the targets that have so far been mentioned for recruiting for the industry not one, we are given to understand, has yet been reached. That is a most important matter. Again, I do not wish in any way to be unfair, but in view of all these misgivings, which I think are fairly general throughout the country, the least that we could expect before any further legislation was put before Parliament, and certainly before any further powers were asked for, was that we
  50
  should be given a full and frank disclosure of the position of the industry to-day. In asking for that, I am not by any means anxious to hear only of what is wrong. I should be very glad—indeed, I should be delighted—to hear what grounds exist for optimism. There may well be such grounds, just as there may be some matters which would warrant serious concern.
  It may be argued, in reply to that, that we have the Report of the Burrows Committee. But the Report which we have received appears to me to be very attenuated, and certainly the recommendations made do not appear to be always substantiated by the reasons given for the various suggestions which are put forward. I am not asking that there should be anything in the nature of interference with the executive day-to-day responsibility of the Coal Board, and certainly I do not wish in any way to try to make Party political capital out of this matter. We are all far too deeply concerned with the coal industry, which has to meet such a vital need of the country as a whole. When I say that, of course, I include the welfare of all those, from top to bottom of its
  organisation, who work within the industry. It is a vital industry, but whilst those responsible for running it might in certain circumstances feel justified in keeping the public largely in the dark as to what they are doing, I feel that that is not good enough when we are asked to agree to further powers such as are set out in this measure.
  What does the Bill say? Does it in any way do anything, or have the debates which have arisen upon it done anything, to relieve our misgivings? First, let us take Clause 1, concerning which a good deal has already been said this afternoon. It is true that that clause arises as the result of one of the recommendations of the Burrows Committee. I have no doubt that a Committee with such distinguished membership could not but feel they had good reasons for that recommendation, but surely only in relation to all the other recommendations that they put forward in their Report. I cannot possibly conceive that, by itself, the one recommendation that is made use of in Clause 1 could be regarded in any way as fundamental.
  Turning to Clause 2, we have here an immense subject dealt with in a very

  51
  small clause. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill this afternoon, the Minister gave us no reasons whatever why the new provisions in this clause were required. I can well imagine that there may be some instances where the National Coal Board feel slightly embarrassed because their activities are limited strictly to this country. But is it really necessary, in order to meet those cases, to have a clause of this nature with such unlimited implications as obviously there are in it? I do not think that I should be far wrong if I were to suggest that, as the result of the experience gained so far in this country with State trading, the country as a whole realises that there are very definite dangers inherent in such trading, particularly in peace time. It may have been all right in certain circumstances in war, but in peace time there are inherent dangers in it. This clause opens the door to unlimited opportunities for State trading, and the Minister has given us no information as to how it is intended that the new powers are to be used. It may be that he intends to use them only to a limited extent. All one can say, if that is the case, is: Then why ask for such unlimited powers? Surely, if a sound case can be made out for some additional power here or there it would be the easiest thing—as one noble Lord has already said—to come to Parliament and say: "We want to do this specific thing, and we want powers to enable us to do it." But to ask for unlimited powers such as are included in Clause 2 is, to my mind, definitely dangerous.
  Other speakers have dealt with Clauses 3 and 4, and I do not propose to say anything about them. I would, however, like to make one reference to Part II of the Bill. The matters dealt with there, in common with all matters that affect the safety of any industry, are clearly of great importance and provisions to that end should be welcomed. But this matter of safety in coal mines is a technical matter on which I am not qualified to speak, and I do not propose to do so. May I just say that I believe that His Majesty's Government, knowing—at least, I assume they know—that Part I of this Bill must inevitably be highly controversial would have been well advised, if only as an earnest of their good intentions, to
  52
  introduce Part II as an entirely separate measure? I feel strongly about that. I think the Government have made a great mistake in not following that line.
  At the beginning of my remarks, I said that I had only one general point to make, and I now come back to it. We are all deeply concerned with this industry. However it is organised, we are all intent that it should thrive. We have many misgivings about present arrangements. Some of those misgivings may be justified; some may have arisen simply by reason of the fact that we are not given sufficient information, and they may be misplaced. This Bill, and the discussions which have taken place upon it, have done nothing to remove those misgivings. If only we could be told what the position really is, whether there really is ground for some optimism or whether in other directions the misgivings which we feel are justified, then I personally should feel much happier about accepting the Bill as it is.
  5.40 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill in a happy and persuasive speech, gave it the best launching it could have had. In view of his great knowledge of the coal industry, his interventions in our debates will always be welcome in this House. Perhaps we may hope that at some date not very far ahead he may be entrusted with another measure designed to deal more radically with some of the difficulties which have been discussed by your Lordships to-day. Be that as it may, I should like to add my tribute to those of other noble Lords and to say how much we have enjoyed the noble Lord's speech to-day.
  In another place this Bill was described by the Minister as "a good, simple
  little Bill." Little it is, but I do not think your Lordships would agree that it is altogther simple, or altogether good. Though the Bill is little, the subject is an immense one. We could discuss few more important subjects than the coal industry. I think it would be right to say that no more valuable contribution could be made to our country's progress at the present time than that the coal target set out by the Government should be attained. The Economic Survey for 1948 says:

  53
  "The first object must be to produce at least 200,000,000 tons of coal, and this must be regarded as an absolute minimum."
  As your Lordships know, production in 1948 was 3,000,000 tons below that target, and I feel we must all try to contribute in a helpful spirit towards any suggestions that may be valuable in bridging that gap.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, coal is our greatest raw material, the basis of many of our industries. In former times it was the most valuable export we had. It is nationalised property. Nationalisation was carried out by another
  Government. As a junior Minister, I remember the long discussions and adjustments of the nationalisation of the coal royalties. The industry is worked now by a nationalised organisation. It is therefore right and proper that your Lordships should take this opportunity to discuss in a constructive spirit whether all is well with the industry and, if not, how far this Bill goes to meet any defect. Before proceeding to say a few words on the points of the Bill which are to some extent controversial and have been criticised this afternoon, I should like to give a warm welcome to Part II, which deals with safety. The measures here proposed are wise and timely, and it would be the desire of all your Lordships that they should be successful in further safeguarding the lives and the health of the miners. In that connection, I particularly welcome the proposal that deputies and other higher production officials should submit to statutory examinations. I think that is a sound proposal. My only comment on Part II is that the time may well have arrived when there should be a new Coal Mines Act, involving a thorough overhaul of the law in the light of changing conditions and technique since 1911. This point was fully dealt with by my noble friend Lord Swinton, and I shall not elaborate it. This was said also in another place, both by a former Minister and by the present Minister of Fuel and Power. It is not a matter of dispute. I hope the time may come when such a Bill will be brought forward. I should be happy if it were brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald.
  Part I of the Bill has been subjected to criticism. As regards Clause 1, it is generally agreed by all sides that the industry is suffering from over-centralisa
  54
  tion and too much remote control on the part of the National Coal Board. The remedies are not immediately obvious, although some valuable suggestions have been made in the course of the debate. Whatever the merits of the schemes put forward, and I shall not set them out again, one thing is clear—namely, that the proposals in the first clause, though in the right direction, are not in themselves adequate to change the state of affairs. The three new part-time members of the Board would need to perform whole-time miracles. It would be better to lead the Board away from this over-functionalised tendency and put it to the work for which it was really intended—to direct policy.
  It is true that without fresh legislation the National Coal Board can reorganise itself entirely to meet some of the troubles apparently present. I should have liked more evidence that the Minister appreciated the admitted difficulties from which the National Coal Board suffer, and which in the light of experience they may themselves be able to remedy. There is general agreement that their policy should be decided at the head, but that administration in the highest degree possible should be conducted in the area or at the pit. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has pointed out the very considerable increase of the non-productive staff in the industry. These are early days yet in nationalisation, and we are learning lessons as we go along—but we must be sure we are, in fact, learning them. I hope it will not be long before the Government make some definite moves as the result of these lessons.
  To my mind, Clause 2 contains the seeds of future difficulty. The Government have striven to make the case that they must have powers to compete with other countries which have their own selling agencies. I hold the view, however, that the public, as owners, ought to be allowed to scrutinise carefully the new functions which the Board propose to undertake, because there are many snags to be encountered in the new wide field of selling coal abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, seemed to argue that there was substance in the Government's view that they ought to be able to establish their own agency and instanced the case of the Rheinish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate. I would remind your Lordships that that syndicate, which was

  55
  responsible for selling Ruhr coal in foreign markets, was closed down by the British Military Government in October, 1945, and the reason they gave at that time was that the syndicate represented an excessive concentration of economic power. That might be right or wrong, but it has a lesson for us; and it is that lesson that I should like to point to now. There will be many snags ahead. For example, in many countries politics enter much more closely into commerce than in this country, and when our Government become an export agency, is there not a real danger that countries which do not like our democratic way of life, our methods and our Government—I am not speaking in any Party sense but in a much wider sense—would seek to retaliate by not buying our coal? That is a real danger, and one which I hope the Government have fully visualised in entering this new field.
  Several noble Lords have referred to the complicated question of bunkering and the interrelation of the coal export trade with invisible exports, an expert field into which the Government are venturing, I hope, with sufficient knowledge and consideration. This is a field which has been exploited and in which the technique has been built up over many years by people who have given much study to it. It has been agreed that, before extending their activities over such a wide field as this clause envisages, it would have been better if the National Coal Board had gained more experience in their own field of producing coal. We have pointed out where the dangers lie. While the Government will undoubtedly go their own way, I hope they will watch for these dangers.
  I come to Clause 3, which deals with the termination of contracts. If this clause struck only at the peculiar and unreasonable contract, I should not feel I could oppose it; but it goes much further than that. As my noble friend Lord Swinton pointed out—and I would like to enlarge upon it a little—there are many special contracts which are not unreasonable. For example, it was common practice in other days for a firm to contract for specific grades of coal from a specific area, in order, say, to operate their steam-producing plant to the best possible advantage, and to run it most economically. To-day the same firms are
  56
  making complaints that they are unable to get those precise types of coal, that their plant has to run less economically and requires attention and repair. That type of contract does not seem to me to be unreasonable. Is it really intended that all such contracts should be determined, or should run the risk of being determined? I would like to reinforce the point of my noble friend Lord Swinton, and I think of Lord Rochdale, that there is a strong case for the right of appeal and arbitration on the question of whether, in a particular case, the National Coal Board are warranted in exercising the power given by this clause—that is to say, that there should be arbitration not only on the amount of compensation but on whether a particular case is the type of case which this clause should cover. We attach great importance to this, and we shall return to it in Committee.
  Clause 4 has also come in for some criticism. I am sure your Lordships will agree that there is no intention of committing anything approaching an act of bad faith in respect of former employees. I suggest that the point requires further examination in Committee, to ensure that there is not a breach of such understanding, for a breach of such understanding would be unhappy and would have results far outside this industry. Your Lordships will have noticed that there is little public interest in this Bill. It has been described as a small and simple Bill and, therefore, possibly the public have not shown much interest in it. But that is not to say that the country is not very much alive to the importance of this great industry, and to the importance of reaching our production target. I have just been reading a publication which I obtained in the Printed Paper Office today. It is a statistical publication issued by the National Coal Board giving tables of comparable figures covering a number of years. There are some figures to encourage us, and there are others to give us serious food for thought. I commend it to your Lordships for study, and perhaps on the Committee stage we may hear more about it, because some of the figures may be valuable to us in our considerations. Do not be put off by the fact that on the front it says, "April 1, 1949"! The publication gives a plain statement of figures which may be of some value to us.

  57
  In another place it was claimed by more than one speaker that since the
  nationalisation of the industry there has been a better spirit abroad among the workers. Whether or not that is the case I do not profess to say, but without reservation we must all hope that it is so. We would all wish that there should be a good spirit throughout the industry. But one thing cannot be in dispute—namely, that the workers in this industry are entitled to have the best possible administrative machine at the top. It is because I do not feel that this Bill goes far to provide such a machine that I have my doubts about it. So far as it does progress in that direction, we welcome it; where its shortcomings lie, we have endeavoured to point them out.
  5.53 p.m.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, in a very brief reply—I feel that many of the questions raised can be better dealt with on the Committee stage—I would like to thank noble Lords who have made so many kind personal references. They have differentiated between the person who moved the Second Reading and the contents of the Bill. To take the Bill clause by clause, all the points were made in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and have been more or less underlined by subsequent speakers. Lord Swinton paid a high tribute both to Sir Charles Reid and to Colonel Lancaster. Knowing both those gentlemen, I would agree with his tribute. It is usual, when we are quoting, to give a standard to the authority we are quoting. In some respects I think the approach of both those gentlemen to the industry is the right one, but I am not too sure about that on the question of the abolition of the regions.
  I had the privilege of being Regional Controller, under the Ministry of Fuel and Power, during a period of the war. I found that though the regions were not doing all they might be doing they were a good link between headquarters and the collieries. After all, we have to be very careful, in dealing with this machinery, not to deal with it in too drastic a manner all at once. It may be necessary later to consider the question of replacing the regional boards by some other machinery, but I would suggest that it would be wrong—even if it were neces
  58
  sary —to deal with it in this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, said, to-day we can abolish all the regional boards; there is no need to provide in the Bill for that.
  With regard to another point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and by many other noble Lords, I feel we have to be careful about over-emphasising decentralisation. It has its virtues. The same remark applies to the question of functionaries on the National Coal Board. I think the National Union of Mineworkers would insist that wages be dealt with nationally. For that alone we need one functionary, at least, on the National Coal Board. The same would apply to labour questions in general. The regulation of hours, the question of working an extra half-hour, and so on, would be national questions for the labour officer. The labour officer must be a functionary. And I am quite certain that that applies to scientific research. There are some, it seems to me, who must be executives on the Coal Board. To-day, more than half the present members of the National Coal Board have been relieved of all functionary responsibilities.
  Much has been said with regard to Clause 2, and here I would like to make reference to Lord Swinton's remarks. I do not think it is correct to say that the restriction of overseas activities was the deliberate intention of Parliament. From reading Hansard (I was elsewhere at the time) I think what happened was that Parliament was anxious to prevent the overseas assets of collieries from vesting. In their anxiety to do this, Parliament overlooked the necessity of making reference to those overseas activities as regards the sale of coal. I do not think noble Lords need have any anxiety. I must say that I felt the picture as to what could happen under this clause was being drawn rather too darkly. I would not deny the possibility of its happening, but I would certainly deny the probability. No Coal Board in this country would take a course which would endanger the coal industry and the real interests of the British people. I would say on Clause 2 that it is as well to keep in mind that among those now exercising the powers as exporters, are probably men who have been advisers to the National Coal Board.

  59
  Let me emphasise what I said in my opening speech. It is not right that the Coal Board should depend on a body outside itself. They should not be told, "Your job is production, and production only. You attend to that, and leave the rest to somebody else." That, in my opinion, would not be a good thing for nationalisation or for the country. The miners never looked at nationalisation in the sense that we simply nationalised production and left the rest as it was.
  LORD HAWKE: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I do not think he has grasped our point. It does not really matter what the miners say about it. What matters is what the customers say. My knowledge of foreigners is that they do not like buying from a State; they know they will get a dirty deal.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I would not say they know they will get a dirty deal. In my opinion you will find that the foreign customer will buy from anybody who can provide him with it at a reasonable price.
  LORD HAWKE: He wants to buy from somebody he can sue at law.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: We cannot pursue that matter any further now, and no doubt it will come up on the Committee stage. I was rather alarmed when the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, suggested—I took his words down—that the exercise of these new powers could be permitted only providing the Minister himself brought an Order to Parliament asking permission. The noble Viscount can hardly seriously suggest that if a foreign buyer asks for a c.i.f. quotation from the National Coal Board, a Parliamentary Order should be issued before that request can be met.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not mean that every time somebody wanted to buy a cargo of coal there must be an Order. What I meant was that if there was a case in which the Coal Board could persuade the Minister that in a particular market they ought to go into the export trade, he should then make an Order permitting them to do so, subject to confirmation by Parliament.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Is not the other way better? The Coal Board have already persuaded the Minister to entrust them with this power for use when they consider it necessary. That seems far better than saying: Withhold this legislation until the condition arises, when the Coal Board will go to the Minister and say that they are now making a case for him to make an Order.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will put down an Amendment on the Committee stage, and we can see what is the Parliamentary view.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: On the question of Clause 3, again I think there must be some misunderstanding regarding the type of contract to be dealt with. The position before nationalisation was that the buyer and seller were in a certain relationship, and often a friendly relationship. In many cases the financial interests were the same interests, and they made arrangements and contracts because of their intimate relationship. One of those parties has gone out. The coal-producing part has gone, but you are still left with a contract made on some such basis, with a friendly feeling and understanding. We do not think it is fair to say to the Board: "You must take up the same contract, no matter how much it hampers you." There is no intention of breaking contracts wholesale. The only intention is to deal with the question whether these contracts are fair contracts, having regard to the new position.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, and other noble Lords, emphasised that it should be possible for these questions to be dealt with by arbitration, apart from the amount of compensation. I am advised that under Clause 3 the arbitrator, in assessing the compensation for the determination of the contract, considers whether the terms are such as would be expected in a contract made in the ordinary course. In the consideration of the compensation the question whether the contract is one that ought to come into that category will be considered.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Let me be clear about this matter. Supposing the Coal Board says: "I want to determine this

  61
  particular contract," and the man with whom the contract is made says: "I want that contract continued," will the determination of the contract be a subject for arbitration, or only the amount of compensation if the contract is determined?
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Let me read these words again. This is the advice I have received. Under this clause the arbitrator, in assessing the compensation to be paid as a result of determination of the contract, considers whether the terms of the contract now to be determined are such as would be expected in a contract made in the ordinary way. In the old days contracts were made in a different way.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think I have it clear, and I think I was right. The Coal Board will have an absolute right to determine the contract. The other party to the contract cannot go to arbitration and say: "I want the contract to go on."
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Not at that point.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: We say he should. It is a very serious thing to determine a contract. If a contract is to be determined, then the Coal Board, if challenged, should state their case, and the other party should state his case. The arbitrator should then say whether the contract should be determined or not, in addition to saying what the compensation should be.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: That had better be left to the Committee stage. With regard to Clause 4, I was rather surprised to hear it suggested that somebody was going to lose something. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, referred to it as "a clarifying clause" and he
  almost made it into a scarifying clause. Since the Act was put on the Statute Book the Government have noticed that certain words could be interpreted in a way they never intended. Because of that, rather than risk going to the courts on that issue, they themselves decided that they would put in the form of words which would carry out their intention. I quite agree that had someone interpreted the words in such a way that he would benefit to a certain extent, and then under the new
  62
  words he would benefit to a less extent, he could be said to have suffered something. No one suffers or gains anything under this clause. It simply puts it in plainer language. I do not think any other point has been raised.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has been so kind to us that I would put this to him. He is saying exactly the opposite to what the Minister said. If the noble Lord looks at Hansard of February 8, 1949, column 374, he will find these words:
  "… the new clause may in some cases inure to the advantage of a person who claims an expectation and in some cases it may be the reverse."
  If that does not mean that in some cases a man may be better off and in other cases worse off, I do not know what it means.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Accepting a certain interpretation, it would mean what the noble Viscount has quoted, but that is an interpretation which was never intended. If that had been inserted in the previous Bill there would have been no loss whatever. I quite agree that if this section is interpreted in a certain way it would appear that a beneficiary would receive a certain fixed compensation, whereas under this amendment he will not. The Government are taking action before it goes to the courts. There is only one other point I would like to make on Clause 4, and that is that it is not intended, as the noble Viscount seemed to indicate, that all workers in nationalised industry should beware and watch out. It is not intended that fair compensation shall not be paid where it ought to be paid. What is intended is that unreasonable compensation shall not be paid. I was asked a very definite question—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for putting it to me—as to whether we will consider, between now and the Committee stage, introducing a new clause to deal with the various societies who have been, in the past, and still are, responsible for dealing with the payment of compensation. I can assure him that such a clause will be brought forward, and I hope that it will meet with the approval of the Committee.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  6.9 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, before the House adjourns I ask leave to make two announcements. The first is that it is proposed to postpone until a later date the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, and to take tomorrow the Second Reading of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill and the Committee stage of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Bill.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: To be taken after the Motion to-morrow?
  LORD AMMON: Yes. May I also say that before going on to the usual business to-morrow, reference will be made to the memory of the late Lord Lucan?

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.

  CERTIFICATES FROM EXAMINERS
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in
  64
  respect of the Petitions for the following Bills:
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WOOD LANE SITE);
  SHOREHAM HARBOUR:
  And also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
  TEIGNMOUTH AND SHALDON BRIDGE;
  UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM:
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on February 15 last discharged, and Bill committed.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lords following be proposed to the House as Members of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act during the present Session—namely:
  L. Ker (M. Lothian),
  L. Ettrick (L. Napier):
  Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.