asked the Minister of Pensions, concerning the case of Mr. Arthur Jones, ex-private, No. 71,420, 2nd battalion Durham Light Infantry, who enlisted in September, 1914, when he was classified Al although he bore the marks of serious bodily injury, on account of which he previously had been for six months an in-patient at the Bradford infirmary, whether he is aware that during an attack of trench fever, contracted whilst on active service in France and for which he was confined to hospital for three months, ex-Private Jones began to have pains, where he had been injured before he enlisted, which fact he reported to the nurses in charge of his case; that two months after demobilisation further aggravation of these pains made it necessary for ex-Private Jones again to go into hospital, where he was operated upon three times for the extraction of dead bone from the seat of his old pre-War injury, and that ever since there has been continuous discharge at the place from whence the dead bone was extracted; that although treatment allowance was allowed to ex-Private Jones as a case of aggravated disability it has since been stopped, and an appeal for its continuance has been decided adversely; and whether, having regard to the facts here stated, he will take steps to satisfy the claim of ex-Private Jones for treatment allowance or, alternatively, for a pension to compensate him for his disability aggravated by war service?

The history of this case, as stated in the question, differs materially from the official record. The man was treated in hospital for trench feet for two weeks in 1916, and for no other disability at any time during service. There is no record of any physical defect on enlistment, and the man's own statement supports this. Three months after he was demobilised he made claim to pension, but the disability then found could not be connected with service. The decision of the Ministry rejecting the claim was confirmed on appeal by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and cannot, therefore, be re-opened. The man may, however, apply for a pension for trench feet if he is now suffering from that disability.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that William Smith, Case 6/MS/7064, residing at 71, Meeting Street, Wednesbury, made application for a disability pension due to pulmonary tuberculosis; that the medical report of 10th June, 1921, shows that the disability was attributable to war service; that the degree of disablement was certified to be nephritis 10 per cent., and T. B. 100 per cent.; if so, why the Ministry refused to accept the opinion of its own medical advisers and opposed the application; is he aware that in consequence of this opposition the Pensions Appeal Tribunal rejected the man's appeal; and will he reconsider this case?

The decisions of the Tribunal are final, and I am, therefore, precluded from reopening this case.

Why, although the Ministry's own medical officer was in favour of this man's claim, has the Ministry failed to accept it and opposed the man's application before the Appeal Tribunal? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a satisfactory policy?

It is not right to say that we opposed the claim. We were unable to grant the claim. All the information was given to the Appeal Tribunal, and the most satisfactory way of dealing with a case of grave doubt is to have a decision by an independent body.

Why could not the right hon. Gentleman accept the decision of the medical officer, before whom he compelled the man to go, which is in favour of the man?

In a case of grave doubt we have to go into the matter fully. As we were unable with the differences of opinion, to come to a decision, it was decided by an independent tribunal, which seems to me to be the fairest way.

What is the virtue in compelling a man to go before a medical officer whose decision is not accepted?

We cannot argue the matter by question and answer.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that John Thomas Bowdler, No. 18,145, South Staffordshire Regiment, now residing at 18, Pagett's Passage, Wednesbury, recently applied for a pension for disability due to pulmonary tuberculosis; that the Ministry opposed the claim; that the medical report of 4th April, 1922, indicated that Bowdler's disability was 100 per cent, due to pulmonary tuberculosis; that Bowdler suffered the amputation of his left leg due to gunshot wounds; that the T.B. officer reported on the 18th May, 1922, that the amputation of the leg, plus the effects of gas poisoning of Bowdler in 1916, largely contributed to the development of pulmonary tuberculosis; that the reports of his approved society show that Bowdler enjoyed good health before the War and had received no benefits; that his local medical attendant stated he had known Bowdler for 20 years and had never treated him for tuberculosis; that, in consequence of the opposition of the Ministry, the Pension Appeal Tribunal rejected Bowdler's application; that Bowdler was an inmate of the Moxley Sanatorium, Wednesbury, when his appeal was rejected; and, having regard to these facts, is he prepared to reconsider this case?

The claim in respect of tuberculosis was rejected by the Ministry as, after full consideration of all the circumstances, it was not found possible to accept the condition as being connected with service, which ended more than five years before the first appearance of the disease. This decision has been confirmed by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal and is therefore final. I may add that the man is in receipt of a permanent pension at the 60 per cent, rate in respect, of his wounds.

I beg to give notice that I will raise this question upon the Adjournment to-night.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. Sharkey, widow of Edward Sharkey, No. 363,761, Labour Corps, has been allowed a pension of 5s. 6d. per week for herself and four children; that Erward Sharkey was discharged from the Army on account of gunshot wounds; that he had wounds on the fingers of the left hand, the matter coming from which was poisonous; that Mrs. Sharkey was warned not to touch these wounds; and that as soon as he was dead mortification set in, the body turning black; and whether he will have this case reopened with a view to granting a more satisfactory allowance to this woman and her children?

This man died more than three years after discharge from an attack of acute pneumonia lasting only four days. The Ministry, after full consideration of all the circumstances, were unable to accept the cause of death as being connected with service, and that decision, having been confirmed by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, is final. I regret, therefore, that ho greater pension than that already awarded under Article 17 of the Royal Warrant can be given by my Department.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. Marion M'Donald, 62, Eaglesham Street, Plantation, Glasgow, was charged at the instance of the Ministry of Pensions with defrauding the Pensions Ministry of the sum of £3 3s. 9d.; that this woman has been fined £5 or 14 days' imprisonment; whether the accusation was to the effect that she had boarded her lodgers, from whom she received 5s. per week: whether he will state if this is the policy pursued by the Ministry towards the widowed mothers of soldiers who have been killed in the War; and whether, in view of the indignation which is being caused by this treatment of soldiers' dependants, he is prepared to abandon further action against this woman and to recommend the Secretary for Scotland to quash the sentence imposed upon her?

This woman pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining money from public funds by false pretences and was convicted by the Court. I have no power to interfere with the sentence of the Court, nor can I undertake to evade my duty, however unpleasant, of instituting proceedings where there is clear evidence of intent to defraud the State.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this woman only received temporary money and was advised by the detective to plead guilty, and that she had no legal assistance in the Court and was under the impression that what she had done was right so far as she was concerned? Again, as this seems to be the method adopted by the Ministry of Pensions, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration those cases and stop these prosecutions going on?

It is not in the power of the Ministry to stop a prosecution decided on by other authorities, but the reluctance with which we have prosecuted in these cakes is Shown by the fact that in the comparatively few cases in which we have prosecuted there have almost invariably been convictions. This shows that we have only proceeded with reluctance and when it was necessary to do so.

Was not this prosecution instituted by the Ministry of Pensions on the report of their own investigator, and is this the new method adopted by the Ministry of Pensions in trying to find out through those people something which is not against them, but which ought to be in their favour—trying to support themselves?

We have no desire to prejudice the case, but if we find a thing done which is wrong, it is obviously our duty to report it.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether an investigator from the Pensions Office called upon Mrs. Julia, Gray, 53, Reid Street, Govan, whose son was killed in the War and who is at present in receipt of a pension; whether he is aware that this woman's husband is at present unemployed and she has been compelled to do occasional work; whether the investigator has informed Mrs. Gray that she may be summoned for defrauding the Ministry, as she did not inform them of the wages she was earning when in temporary employment; whether, in view of the large number of similar cases that are at present being summoned in Glasgow and in Scotland generally, he can state if this is the new policy to be pursued by the Ministry of Pensions towards the dependants of soldiers who fell in the Great War; and whether he is prepared to assure the House that such action will be abandoned?

This case is at present under investigation, and I am, therefore, unable to give the hon. Member any assurance as to the action which will be taken.

May I ask whether it is not the case that, where individuals are out of employment temporarily, the Ministry looks upon that as sometimes not entitling them to any increase in their pensions, while in cases where women get temporary employment it seems that the Ministry is desirous of contending that these people are endeavouring to, defraud the Ministry, and the Ministry either reduces the pension or brings the people into court?

That is too long a supplementary question.

On a point of Order. These cases are becoming very numerous throughout the country, and it seems to be the settled policy of—

The matter can be raised on the Motion for Adjournment. That will be the opportunity for the hon. Member. This is not the time to debate the matter.

I am sorry to press the point of Order, but this is a matter which seems to mark a new policy in the part of the Ministry of Pensions, and the only way in which we can raise the issue is by putting questions to the Minister. I am, therefore, asking him—

That would take up the whole of Question Time, to the detriment of other Members. When a hon. Member puts down a question, and receives an answer with which he is not satisfied, he can put down further questions, and so pursue the matter.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many new applications for pensions were received during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1922; how many of these were granted; and whether it is proposed to enforce the seven years' limit allowed to men disabled in the late War to send in their applications?

During the year ending 30th September last, 107,000 applications, of all classes were received, and in 53,000 cases an award of pension, weekly allowance or gratuity was made. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. I may remind the hon. Member that this time limit was approved by Parliament and is incorporated in the War Pensions Act, 1921.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will reconsider the order issued by the Ministry of Pensions, that, should a man die seven years after his discharge from the service, his widow or children shall not be entitled, to pension, with, a view £o its abolition, as the order is strongly resented by ex-service men, who consider it to be unjust and contrary to the spirit of the promises made to them by previous Governments?

No order to the effect stated has been issued by my Department. A man who dies under conditions which do not render his widow eligible for the maximum rate of pension under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant is entitled to be considered for pension under Article 17, and, in fact, pensions are being awarded under the latter article. With regard to the suggestion that the seven years' time limit should be removed from Article 11, perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the memorandum issued by the late Minister of Pensions at the end of the last Parliament—Command Paper 1748–in which the difficulties in the way of the suggestion are fully set out. I have quite recently myself most carefully considered every aspect of the question, and I am very hopeful that a satisfactory solution will very shortly be arrived at.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the time of meeting of the Leyton and Walthamstow Area Pensions Committee has been fixed for 3 p.m. against the expressed wish of the ex-service members, and that as a consequence it is not possible for these men to attend the meetings without serious risk of losing their employment: and will he use his influence to have these meetings fixed at such a time as will enable ex-service men and other working-class representatives to attend without loss of working time?

The time at which War Pensions Committees shall hold their meetings is, under the regulations, left in the discretion of the Committee. I feel sure that committees will themselves be able to arrive at some arrangement which will suit the convenience of all their members.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence, as suggested, in view of the fact that the Committee has not been able to enter into this arrangement, and that, as a consequence, these men, working-class representatives and ex-service men, are debarred from attending the Committee?

It would be very undesirable for the Ministry to embark on such a course as would be involved in an attempt to settle the time at which hundreds of committees should sit. I hope that the committees will arrange the time of their meetings in a way to meet the convenience of ex-service men.

asked the Minister of Pensions the total number of persons in the various categories who are in receipt of war pensions, and the expenditure involved, including administrative ex-penses; and whether the figures show a reduction with 12 months ago?

The approximate number of beneficiaries under the Royal Warrants on the 31st October last was 2,620,000, as compared with 3,135,000 twelve months previously. The total estimate of the expenditure of my Department for the current financial year is £89,991,000, as compared with an approximate expenditure of £95,545,000 for the financial year ending 31st March, 1922.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider at an early date the desirability of stabilising for life all pensions to ex-service men and the abolition of medical boards, thus re-moving from the minds of those men the present unsettled feeling of uncertainty and apprehension which now exists, and at the same time, whilst economising in administration, enabling adequate compensation to be given to those who are suffering from incapacity through serving their country during the War?

Regulations for the making of final awards were issued at the beginning of the year in pursuance of Section 4 of the War Pensions Act, 1921. The scheme is in active operation and a large number of final awards have already been made. It is my intention to expedite this process as much as possible, and I have already taken steps to this end.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the hard- ship caused to ex-service men by delay in forwarding pension draft books from London to local post offices; whether he can furnish the numbers of instances in which men have been forced to apply to local offices for advances during the present year; and whether, in order to reduce this delay to a minimum, he will consider the question of having draft books and ring papers prepared and pensions paid in the offices of pensions committees?

I regret that I have no available figures as to the number of cases in which pensioners have obtained advances from local offices during the present year, but the amount paid out by way of advance during the first nine months of this year (which is an approximate guide to the number of cases) is less than half the amount paid out during the corresponding months of last year. I may point out to the hon. Member that a very large proportion of the cases in which delay occurs in the payment of current pension are due to the fact that the pensioner has neglected to complete the certificate of identification, or life certificate, which is at present required to be furnished quarterly by all persons drawing pension from public funds. The question whether this certificate of identification can be required less frequently, namely, at six-monthly instead of three-monthly intervals, which would be greatly in the interests of pensioners, is one which is being most carefully considered, and I am hopeful that this improvement may be effected. The question of decentralising pension issue to the local offices was considered by the Departmental Committee of last year, over which I presided, but the Committee were unable to recommend that the change should then be made, and I am satisfied that no benefit would accrue if it were made at the present time.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Corporal T. Wardrop, No. 13,241, Black Watch Highlanders, now residing at 11, Anderson Street, Bonnybridge, voluntarily joined the Army in 1914; was passed Al; contracted malaria in Mesopotamia: was discharged as physically unfit for service from Craigleith Hospital, Edinburgh; is now suffering from lung trouble, officially admitted to have been aggravated by his War service, and has produced certificates from local doctors proving that he never suffered from lung trouble prior to his joining the Army; that he is now incapable of following his trade as an iron-moulder; has a wife and four children dependent upon him; is now in impoverished circumstances; has applied for work at motoring or repairs which he understands; will he state why no reply has been sent to his applications; and why a pension has been refused him?

I have not been able to trace any application regarding this case as having been received in the Ministry during the present year. The pensionable disability was asthma, compensation in respect of which was in payment so long as the effects of service remained.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of a soldier reported wounded and missing and later reported missing and dead as from the date of being reported wounded and missing, the pension paid to his de pendant relatives should commence from the first date; and, if not, is soldier's pay paid for the interval between the two dates to those who were dependent on him?

In these cases any separation allowance in issue was continued by the Service Department for 30 weeks and pension awarded by my Department took effect from the cessation of that allowance. Where, however, a dependant was not eligible for separation allowance or had neglected to apply for it, pension is payable from the date of application only. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the answer to the last part of the question is that pay ceased from the date on which the soldier became missing, but if he was later presumed to be dead pay was credited up to the date of presumed death.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the final awards boards; which have been set up to deal with Notts and Derbyshire cases sit only at Nottingham, thus causing inconvenience and expense to Derbyshire pensioners, in addition to which the work has become so congested at Nottingham that doctors with no military service are employed to do this work, while Derbyshire doctors who served during the War have little or nothing to do so far as medical boards are concerned; and whether, under these circumstances, he will give instructions that Derbyshire cases shall be considered by a final awards board sitting at Derby?

These boards are specially constituted and cannot, in the interest of public economy, be multiplied more than is necessary. I am satisfied that ho unnecessary inconvenience is occasioned by the existing arrangement. The position at Nottingham is, however, being carefully watched, and should an increase of these boards prove necessary, I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind. I may point out that the travelling expenses and reasonable compensation for loss of time for the men concerned are paid by the Ministry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman pretend that there are no cases of congestion at Nottingham, or that many of the people have not to wait a long time on these boards?

I shall be most happy to consider any point which the hon. Member cares to bring before me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiry into this matter?

Certainly.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that, in connection with these boards, only doctors with military service should be employed?

No, Sir. I cannot admit that we can avoid the use of specialist for special purposes, but our main policy is not only to employ doctors with military service, but to give preference to doctors with military service overseas.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now make permanent the pension of ex-Private C. Elliott, late Derbyshire Yeomanry, regimental No. 1,507, who is suffering from tubercular disease of the groin caused by the kick of a horse whilst on military service; whether he is aware that this man has already undergone 10 operations for tills disability and has now been ordered to a military hospital to undergo a farther operation, and that this disability was incurred seven years ago; and whether, Under these circumstances, this man's case can be finally disposed of by granting him a permanent pension?

I am personally looking into the circumstances of this case.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman really think 10 operations are sufficient for this man to undergo before he gets his final award?

It is because of the circumstances brought to my notice by the hon. Member that I propose to look into the case further.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the case of Mrs. F. Bradwell, of Bradwell, Derbyshire, widow of Private Charles R. Bradwell, No. 28,234, Manchester Regiment, whose death was due to disability incurred on military service; whether he is aware that this woman is left with three children, the eldest only five years old; whether he is aware that she has been refused a pension on the ground that the man's removal from duty was not caused by the disability from which he is said to have died; and whether he will review the whole case with a view to Mrs. Bradwell receiving a pension?

The late soldier died two and a-half years after demobilisation from endocarditis, the first medical evidence of which is dated April, 1922 My medical advisers are unable to find such connection between the cause of the death and the man's military service as will satisfy the conditions of the Royal Warrant, and an award of pension cannot therefore be made to the widow. She has, however, a right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal against the decision of the Ministry.

In that appeal will she be opposed by the Ministry of Pensions, as is usually done?

She will be given all the information available.

How does the Minister expect this poor woman, living on parish relief, adequately to fight her case?

The hon. Member, I think, misunderstands altogether the attitude of the Pensions Ministry. Our business is to place all the facts before the tribunal, and those familiar with the work of the tribunals know that.

Is it not the case that, while it is true that the Ministry of Pensions furnish a précis of the evidence, the onus of disproving the facts lies upon the poor woman or the poor soldier, and in many cases they can only very inadequately state their case?

No, Sir, I do not consider that the onus is at all left upon the applicants. In all the cases that have passed through my hands, and where information, civilian or otherwise, is desired, we make it our business to apply to the Service Departments for medical records, etc., so that we may have all the information that will help the applicant.

We have already admitted that; but is not the point this, that after the Ministry has done all that, the person who has to plead before the Court is in that sense incapable, and should there not be some assistance given to him to prove his case?

That is a new question.

asked the Prime Minister what Minister is to be in charge of the League of Nations questions; and who will attend meetings of the council on behalf of this country?

Questions in regard to the League of Nations should be addressed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As regards the last part of the question, I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Would it be any use to put down this question again before the end of the Session?

I really do not think so. We are so pressed that it is very difficult to come to a decision of this kind.

Could it not be settled whether it is to be a Cabinet Minister or not?

No; that is one of the things I am considering.

Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of our representative on the Council of the league of Nations being elected by Parliament instead of nominated by the Government?

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the self-governing Dominions have long passed from the status of colonies, ho will consider the alteration of the title of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or bring the matter before the Imperial Conference?

I have never heard it suggested by the representatives of any of the Dominions that there was any desire for the change suggested, but if such a desire were felt it would no doubt be raised at the Imperial Conference.

asked the Prime Minister whether the invitations have been issued for the Imperial Conference; what subjects have been notified for discussion by any of the parties to the Conference; and whether the Irish Free State will be represented?

I hope that it may be found generally convenient to hold a meeting of the Imperial Conference next year, but no invitations have yet been issued, and the date of meeting must, I think, depend partly on whether it is decided to hold an Imperial Economic Conference distinct from, and in advance of, the Imperial Conference. The second part of the question does not arise at present, but, as to the third, an invitation, when the time comes, will be extended to the Irish Free State.

Has the right hon. Gentleman, observed a paragraph in the newspapers to-day on behalf of the Chief Whip at Portsmouth, to the effect that the invitations were to go out next week?

I have seen that they had gone already.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in any investigation of the pressure of rates on agricultural land, he will cause the investigation to extend to the severe pressure on the rates of the present upkeep, repair, and maintenance of rural district roads which have to be maintained entirely out of local rates?

This question will receive careful consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether steps are to be taken to alter the system relating to the holding of the Assizes at the present county towns; and whether this House will be given the opportunity of discussing any proposed changes before they are carried into effect?

I have been asked to reply. In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I cannot give an answer to the second part of the question until the Committee has reported.

Do I understand from the answer that it is possible this considerable change—which has been denounced by many of the Judges—may be brought about without the House having an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

Until the Committee reports, it is impossible for us to say whether any considerable change will be required. Until we know what sort of changes are required, we cannot say whether it will be necessary to bring them before the House.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of peaceful co-operation in industry, he will take steps to invite representatives of the employers and the employed to meet in a joint industrial conference with a view to arriving at an agreed basis for the establishment of a permanent industrial parliament?

The House knows the value of the work done by the Industrial Councils set up as the result of the Committee presided over by you, Mr. Speaker, but I am inclined to think that the object desired by my Noble Friend could not be attained by the action of the Government and could only succeed if it were undertaken on the joint initiative of employers and workmen.

Will the right hon. Gentleman at all events make inquiry from representatives of the employers and employed as to whether such action by the Government would, not be welcome?

I have spoken to the parties concerned, and the opinion seems to be that at present nothing could usefully be done. I shall, however, make further inquiry.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House of the result of the investigation on the proposed Imperial airship service by the Committee presided over by the First Lord of the Admiralty; if the result of this investigation is satisfactory, will he indicate the intentions of the Government at an early date, in view of the urgency of improving Empire communication.

The report of this investigation is now before the Government, which is, however, not yet in a position to announce its decision.

Would not an airship service give employment to a certain number of people, and could it not be considered in relation to the Government proposals for the relief of unemployment?

The question will be considered as soon as we possibly can. That is all I can say.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position at Bedford—affecting the employment of 1,500 men—where unemployment is rife, in connection with the airship scheme?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to fill the office of Assistant Postmaster-General or whether the abolition of the post is under consideration?

This appointment has not been filled because I think it desirable to look into the question of whether such a post is necessary or not.

asked the Prime Minister if he will receive a deputation from the local authority of the City of Bradford for the purpose of showing the city's need for fresh railway facilities, how the city has been neglected in this respect, and how in any negotiations he may undertake with the railway interests for the provision of new additions to the rail arteries of the nation he may be strengthened by the evidence from Bradford?

I cannot myself undertake to receive a deputation on this question, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, with wham I have been in communication, would be glad to hear any representations from the Bradford Corporation. The hon. Member will realise that the Government have no power to require the companies to take action.