House of Commons
Tuesday, June 5, 1923
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
PRIVATE BILLS [ Lords ](Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely: —
Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill [ Lords ].
Lytham Saint Anne's Corporation Bill [ Lords .]
Plymouth Corporation Bill [ Lords ].
Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicabe thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Potteries and North Staffordshire Tramways and Light Railways Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
West Riding of Yorkshire County Council (Drainage) Bill ( King's Consent signified ),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill [ Lords ] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Buchanan Trust Order Confirmation Bill,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Buchanan Trust, "presented by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
Fraskrburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Fraserburgh Harbour," presented by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
South West of Scotland Blind Asylum Order Confirmation Bill,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Royal Glasgow Asylum for the Blind," presented by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
New Writs
For the County of Devon (Tiverton Division), in the room of HERBERT WESTON SHEPPARD SPARKES, Esquire, deceased.—[ Colonel Leslie Wilson. ]
For the Borough of Morpeth, in the room of JOHN CAIRNS, Esquire, deceased. —[ Mr. Arthur Henderson. ]
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Solent (Southampton Dock Dredgings)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the dredgers from Southampton discharge dock dredgings in the Solent; that this action pollutes the water in the Solent; that in pre-War days these vessels discharged their dredgings outside the Needles, but are not now required to proceed further out to sea than a line joining Hurst Fort and Cliff End Fort; that the ebb tide, which strikes Heaton point, is turned inwards and eddies into Totland and Colwell Bays, Isle of Wight; and whether he will give instructions for the dredgers to discharge as in pre-War days?
:As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
My information is not in complete accord with that of the hon. Member. The present arrangements were made after an inquiry in February last at which the interests concerned were represented, are temporary and are subject to review next September. They have been made primarily in the interest of navigation and fisheries. The allegation that pollution is caused is disputed by the depositing authorities, but if the hon. Member will submit definite evidence of this nature between now and September I shall be happy to consider it.
Trade and Commerce
Patents
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since British patents are not now current in the Irish Free State, there is any intention of reducing the fees in proportion to the extent of protection lost by the exclusion of the Irish Free State?
:It is not proposed to reduce the fees payable in respect of the grant of patents in the United Kingdom. The question of the position of British patents in the Irish Free State is at present under consideration. I am advised that the Patents and Designs Acts of 1907 and 1919 are still in force in the Free State, and all patents hitherto granted are still current, so far as I am aware.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman get into communication with the Irish Free State authorities and try to make this arrangement as easy as possible on both sides of the Channel?
:I am already in communication with them.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that British patents covering a population of about 45,000,000 cost £131 in fees for 16 years, and that the fees of patents in the United States of America covering a population of 110,000,000 for 17 years are only about £7 10s., he will consider whether it will be possible, in the interests of British patentees, to reduce the fees chargeable to a figure more comparable with the American fees?
:It is impossible to establish a fair basis of comparison between British and American fees owing to difference in practice with regard to the permissible scope of a single patent and other considerations. I am afraid it is not practicable to reduce the British scale of fees at the present time.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Convention of European and American Governments stipulates that an application for a foreign patent must be made within 12 months of the filing of the complete Specification in England; whether the British Patent Office frequently delays the acceptance of a British patent for nine months, after which time two months are allowed for public objection after the publication of acceptance in the Gazette; and whether he can take steps to expedite still further the work of dealing with applications for British patents?
:As the answer is somewhat long, perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The hon. Member is no doubt referring to Article 4 of the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which provides inter alia that any person who has duly applied for a patent in one of the contracting countries shall enjoy, for the purposes of registration in other countries, a right of priority within 12 months from the date of the original application. This right arises as soon as an application is filed in the United Kingdom and is not dependent upon the acceptance of the complete Specification. It is not essential to have the result of the search made by the Patent Office before filing foreign applications though no doubt it may be an advantage to applicants. As regards the delay in dealing with applications for patents in this country, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his previous question on the 8th May. Since that date, the arrears have been still further reduced by 300 cases.
Gas (Carbon-Monoxide)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has caused any investigations to be made into the experimental gas plant erected at Newark-upon-Trent, wherein it is claimed that a non-poisonous gas has been produced; and whether there is any probability of such a gas being generally available for commercial and domestic purposes at a price that would not be disadvantageous to the consumer?
7 and 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1)whether his attention has been drawn to the description in the Press of a method of treating gas by a Mr. Tully whereby, so it is alleged, the percentage of carbon-monoxide is very greatly reduced; whether he has any information as to the practicability of producing such a gas upon a commercial scale;
(2)whether the so-called Tully gas is in fact non-poisonous, as has been alleged, or whether, as has also been stated, it is a gas obtained from the complete gasification of Coal which contains about 30 per cent, of carbon-monoxide?
:The latest analysis which I have seen of gas produced by Tully plant at present in industrial use, which was published on the 16th May in the "Gas Journal," gives the carbon-monoxide content as 37 per cent., but I observe that in a prospectus just issued, which my hon. Friends have no doubt seen, it is stated that by means of a new converter the carbon-monoxide content can be reduced to a negligible quantity. I am not in a position to express an authoritative opinion as to the practicability of producing town gas on a commercial scale by the new process. The matter is, however, being carefully watched by the Government Departments concerned.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inventor has taken, and is taking, orders to supply this gas, with a guarantee as to the amount of carbon-monoxide?
:I have given in my answer all the facts of which I am aware. If any experiments are carried out, they will be very closely watched with great interest.
Honey
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the figures of the quantity and value of honey imported into this country during each of the last three years; and whether he can state the quantity and value of honey produced in the United Kingdom during each of the last three years, or, if those figures are not available, during any of the war years?
:The answer involves a statistical table, which, with the permission of the House. I will have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
:Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give me the figures?
:I cannot give the figures of English bee production, but I am giving the best figures I can.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me where I can get the figures? Will the Ministry of Agriculture have them?
:I have made very full inquiry, and I understand that even the voluntary societies interested in bee-keeping are not in a position to state what is the average production of the British bee.
The table promised is as follows:
The following statement shows, for each of the years specified, the net imports ( i.e. , imports less re-exports) of honey into the United Kingdom:
Year. Quantity. Declared Value. cwts. £ 1920 22,878 115,479 1921 1,828 * 35,349 1922 49,488 149,269
* Excess of quantity re-exported over quantity imported.
I regret that I have been unable to obtain any information with regard to the quantity or value of honey produced in the United Kingdom.
Dyestuffs
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the quantity of grey cotton cloth exported increased by 50 percent., whereas the printed and coloured woven cloth decreased by 38 per cent., in 1922 as compared with 1920; that the opinion of the cotton trade is that the cause of this is the prevention by the Government of dyers getting their dye-wares at the cheapest world prices; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the decline of the important cotton dyeing and printing industry?
:I am aware that as between the two years quoted there was a large percentage increase in the exports of grey cotton cloth, and a substantial, though smaller, percentage decrease in the exports of dyed and printed cloth; but I am not prepared to accept the view that this is due mainly to the prices of dyestuffs. As regards the last part of the question, I may point out that, but for the action taken by the Government to promote the dye-making industry, the British textile trades would at the present time be very gravely embarrassed.
:Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the proportion of dyes produced in America?
:The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether aware that one of the largest importers of textiles in the United States of America, in asking for quotations for a large quantity of Bradford textiles, demanded prices both dyed and undyed, on the ground that the cost of guaranteed fast dyes is very much higher in England than in the United States; and what steps the Board of Trade proposes to take to prevent Bradford losing the dyeing of these goods through the cause above stated?
:If the hon. Member will send me more detailed information, particularly as to the nature and quality of the goods, and the quotations for both dyed and undyed goods which were furnished, I will look into the matter.
:Is it possible for the President of the Board of Trade to appeal to the Bradford Dyers' Association and other large syndicates to reduce their prices to manufacturers, having regard to the immense profits they have made in the last 12 months?
:I think that that is a matter which had best be dealt with between the two industries concerned.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the 8th of March, 1923, an application was made to import one ton each of rosazeine B extra and rhodamine B extra; whether permission was refused and the dye user referred to British dyemakers; whether the British price quoted was £1,736 more for the two tons of dyeware; and whether, in view of the large amount of unemployment caused in the dyeing trade by dear dye-wares, he will state what steps he proposes to take to remedy this evil?
:The applications to which the hon. Member refers were, I understand, made by the British Cotton and Wool Dyers' Association. They were refused by the Dyestuffs' Advisory Licensing Committee after full consideration of all the circumstances relating to the particular consignments in question, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter. I am unable to assent to the proposition that the establishment of a dye-making industry in this country is injurious to employment in the dyeing industry. The former is, on the contrary, essential to the security of the latter.
:Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that putting a burden of £1,700 on two tons of dye-stuffs is one very important cause of unemployment in the dyeing trade?
:No, I do not. That is not a fair way of putting the case. As I understand, the matter was decided by the Advisory Committee, on which the dye makers are in a minority, and this was a job lot which was sent in at dumped prices. I am certain that if we had not taken effective steps to establish a dye industry in this country the results would have been deplorable.
:Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that when these job lots are selling openly in Italy and France at such low prices, it would be far better for the English dye users to have the advantage of these low prices than to give the advantage to the dye users in Italy and France?
:That is a matter for debate.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the 15th of February, 1923, an application was made to import a ton of fine colour, indanthrene blue and indanthrene red, the value of which dye was about £870, and that a licence to import was refused, and the dye user was compelled to buy British dyes at £364 more; and whether he will inquire into the matter?
:I have made inquiries into this matter, and am satisfied that the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee took all the circumstances of the case into consideration in arriving at their decision, with which I do not propose to interfere.
Housing
Building Materials (Prices Committee)
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many times the Committee to watch the operations of trusts has met; how many cases of trade combinations it has investigated; and whether the Government are still satisfied that they have all the powers they require to deal adequately with this matter?
:The Committee and its Sub-committees have held six meetings. It has been principally engaged on the general survey of prices with particular regard to increases in the price of certain light castings. There is no evidence as yet that the Committee require further powers.
:Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that if building costs rise they can be adequately dealt with by the powers in the hands of the Committee?
:We must await the Report of the Committee before deciding that question.
South Queensferry
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that, in connection with the latest instalment of the South Queensferry housing scheme, the architect to the scheme is insisting on the use of Dougall's Winch-burgh bricks, costing substantially more than the price at which perfectly suitable bricks made locally can be purchased, which action tends to encourage the brickmakers to maintain high prices, to discourage competition amongst brick-makers, and to hamper contractors in producing lower building costs; and What steps he proposes to take in the matter?
:As the result of inquiries made through the local authority, I am informed that the architect states that he does not insist on the use of Dougall's Winchburgh bricks, but only that the bricks used shall conform to the specification which requires "hard-burned" bricks. The local bricks referred to in the question are' presumably those made by the British Brick Company, Limited, at Philipstoun. These bricks, which are made by a process new to Scotland, cannot be described as "hard-burned, "but the Scottish Board of Health are aware that they have been used on other housing schemes and, so far, no complaints regarding them have reached the Board. In the circumstances of the present case, I do not feel warranted in interfering with the discretion of the architect, who would appear to be entitled to insist upon compliance- with the terms of the specification. The Board are, however, taking steps with a view to ensuring that in future cases the terms of specifications may not be such as to exclude the use of any type of suitable brick whatever may be the process of manufacture.
Board of Trade (Litigation)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give instructions that in any cases of litigation arising out of contracts entered into between the Board of Trade and private individuals or concerns the Board of Trade will not rely upon or take advantage of any privileges relating to procedure or otherwise which derive from the position of the Crown and are not available to ordinary litigants?
:I am unable to give such instructions as my hon. Friend suggests. The Board of Trade is a Department of the Crown, and the practice and procedure relating to the Crown must apply to proceedings in which the Board is concerned. I would remind my hon. Friend that the whole question of procedure by and against the Crown is at present being considered by a Committee presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of England.
Coal Industry
Subsidences (Royal Commission)
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is now in a position to state the names of those who will constitute the Royal Commission which will consider the question of subsidence due to mining operations: and what are the terms of reference to such Commission?
:The following gentlemen have agreed to serve on this Commission:—
Chairman.
Viscount Chelmsford.
Members.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson).
Mr. Hugh Reid Buchanan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. R. G. Ellis).
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. V. Hartshorn).
Mr. Harold Jevons.
Lieut.-Colonel George Alfred Lewis.
Professor Henry Louis.
Mr. Montague Francis Maclean.
Mr. Robert Forster McSwinney.
Sir Walter Powell Nicholas.
Mr. Frank Bradley Varley.
Mr. John David Wallis.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Faversham (Major Wheler).
The Terms of Reference will be as follows:—
"To consider the operation of the law relating to the support of the surface of the land, and of buildings or works on or under the surface, by underlying or adjacent minerals; to enquire into the extent and gravity of the damage caused by subsidence owing to the extraction of minerals and the incidence of the resulting liability; and to report what steps should be taken, by legislation or otherwise, to remedy, equitably to all persons concerned, any defects or hardships that may be found to arise in existing conditions."
:Will the Report be called for before the passage of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Bill?
:I hope that that Bill will shortly become an Act, but the Commission will require a great deal longer time to consider this serious question.
Prices (South Wales)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since the Ruhr occupation coal prices have increased at South Wales ports from 27s. 6d. to 47s. 6d. per ton, he can state the cause of the increase; and whether any portion of the enhanced profits is being paid to the miners in wages?
:Only a small proportion of the total quantity of coal exported from South Wales ports has been sold at anything like 47s. 6d. per ton. The average f.o.b. value per ton of all classes of coal exported shows an increase of only 3s. 4d. in April, 1923, as compared with January, 1923. The higher prices were due to the increase in the home and foreign demand. Under the current Wages Agreement, 83 per cent, of all Proceeds in excess of the amount required for wages and profits at the agreed minimum rates must be devoted to increasing wages, but the improvement in the South Wales trading results in January and February, on which present rates of wages are based, fell just short of giving proceeds in excess of that amount. On the 1st July wages will be adjusted in accordance with the trading results of March and April, which will certainly show an improvement on those of January and February.
:When the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to the small quantity of coal sold at these high prices, can he state into whose pockets the additional profit is going?
:I should think it goes to the seller of the coal. The amount of this coal is small.
:Is it not a fact that there is only a very small quantity of coal sold at these high prices—something like 15 per cent.?
:Is robbery a question of degree?
:Is it not a fact that this small quantity is machine-made and washed coal, which costs a very much larger sum to produce?
:Yes I think that is so.
:Is it a fact that these increased prices go into the pockets of the agents appointed by the mine owners, and not to the mine owners themselves?
:On what grounds does the hon. Member make the assertion that the Association of Mine Owners appoint agents? The Mine Owners' Association do not appoint agents for the sale of coal.
:The two hon. Members must settle that question between themselves.
Pit Ponies
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is in a position to state the result of the special inquiry into the working hours and conditions of animals employed underground?
:This inquiry is not yet completed, but so far the Inspectors of Mines have specially investigated the hours of work of about 37,000 horses, or 60 per cent, of the total number employed in mines. Approximately half of these work six shifts of seven hours each per week. Of the horses working longer hours the physical condition of a few indicated overwork, and action was taken to get their hours lessened; but the general result of the inquiry has been to show that pit ponies are not overworked, and that their condition is satisfactory.
:Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman intend to do anything with regard to limiting the hours of work of pit ponies; is he aware that an outside society has been conducting an inquiry, and that of a very large number of replies received the majority show that the ponies are working double shifts in a large number of cases?
:We certainly welcome any outside inquiries such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I would point out that the cases which have been given so far have not been brought to us in any specific form. Any definite information which is brought to us will be at once dealt with, but in view of the results of the inspection there seems no reason at present to limit the hours. I should be very glad, however, to hear of any cases if the hon. Gentleman will bring them before me.
:Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in many collieries two ponies serve three shifts of men, and that it is quite common?
:The hon. Member is now imparting information, instead of seeking to receive it.
War Bond Policies
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is taking any steps to inform holders, or former holders, of War Bond policies that the two insurance companies concerned are open to receive representations from these holders or former holders, and will endeavour to meet hard cases; or whether he has ascertained if the companies are taking any steps to make this known?
:The Prudential Assurance Company, Limited, is the only company which issued War Loan policies in its industrial branch. That company has promised to submit for my consideration a notice to be issued to the Press agencies embodying the statement referred to by the Solicitor-General that the company is still prepared to consider cases of alleged hardship on their merits where policies issued in the industrial branch have been in existence for less than two years at the date of lapsing. I am informed by the Pearl Assurance Company, Limited, that all the War Loan policies were issued in the ordinary branch and that the premiums on such policies are payable not more frequently than quarterly.
:Do I understand that the Pearl are not going to be as just and generous as the Prudential in this matter?
:Is my right hon. Friend aware that as regards the second company named there has been no complaint, and no disputes have arisen in connection with their policies?
:The two cases are correctly put. The Prudential Company have a very large number of these policies in their industrial branch, and these can be dealt with in the ordinary way by notices in the Press. The Pearl Company, as I understand, never issued that kind of policy. I believe that it is correct, so far as I know, that there are no complaints outstanding in respect of other classes of policies, and this makes advertisements in the Press unnecessary, but that if any cases are brought to their notice they are ready to investigate them.
Ruhr District (German Reparation Duty)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it has been officially stated on behalf of the German Government that no refund of the 26 per cent. English reparation duty will be made in the case of goods exported from the area under French military occupation; that such notification appeared in Issue No. 5, 10th March, 1923, of the "Deutscher Aussenhandel"; that, even although no specific case has been brought to his notice of such refusal, until English merchants have an assurance that the German Government will refund the 26 per cent, or that, pending their refusal to do so, the English Government will suspend the collection thereof from the English merchants it is entirely unreasonable to expect that English merchants should take the risk of importing their goods; that the inter-Allied Commission at Ems has declared itself unable to offer any suggestions to English inquirers; and whether he will make some statement in regard to the matter which will enable English merchants to import their goods free from the doubt and risk which the present unsatisfactory position has occasioned?
:Although I have not seen the particular issue of the German paper to which the hon. Member refers, I am aware that statements of the kind referred to have appeared. I have, however, no information to show that any official pronouncement on the subject was ever issued by the German Government. Moreover, since the date in question the German Government, by a decree issued on 26th April, have authorised firms in the occupied territory to deliver to representatives of United Kingdom firms goods ordered by them prior to 20th February.
British Army
Officers (Open Competition)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War when an interim Report will be presented during the summer by Lord Haldane's Committee which is inquiring into the system of entering officers for the Army; and whether the Government, before taking any steps to abolish or modify the present system of open competition, will afford the House of Commons an opportunity of considering the question?
:I understand that the Committee expect to report during the summer. There is no present intention of abolishing the system of open competition. The last part of the question therefore does not arise.
War Graves (British Empire)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the unsatisfactory manner in which our soldiers' graves at Givenchy are kept and that now, after a lapse of eight years, no headstones are provided whilst the little wooden crosses have become very dilapidated and the names in some cases are hardly legible; that certain parents who wished to erect at their own expense a headstone to the memory of their sons, and who agreed to erect the plain official pattern, have been refused permission to do so; and will he give immediate instructions for the removal of this restriction?
:There are 12 cemeteries at or near Givenchy, but I am not aware that any of them are kept in an unsatisfactory manner. Constructional work has been in progress for some time in these cemeteries and necessarily detracts somewhat from their appearance, but the latest reports show that the graves are in excellent order, sown with grass and planted with flowers and trees. With reference to the wish of certain parents to erect their own headstones, this is not allowed, as, among other reasons, headstones in each row are fixed in a common foundation which has to be specially prepared. Separate work of this kind would also destroy the planting of the cemeteries on each occasion and spoil their general appearance which is maintained with great care until such time as at any rate most of the headstones are ready for erection.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many graves there are on the various fronts identified and unidentified, respectively; how many identified graves there are which have now the appropriate tombstone; and how long does he anticipate it will take to supply the appropriate memorials?
:In reply to the first part of the question, the figures at present are, identified 527,150; not identified 152,756. I propose to circulate full details as to the various fronts in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total number of headstones so far erected is 124,379, of which all but some 2,200 are on identified graves. As regards the last part of the question, it was estimated in 1918 that the work would take 10 years to complete, and there is no reason to think that this estimate will be exceeded.
Following are the details:
IDENTIFIED AND UNIDENTIFIED WAR GRAVES OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. — Identified. Unknown. Total France and Belgium 392,671 130,800 523,471 Italy (including Sicily and Sardinia). 3,504 63 3,567 Gallipoli 8,962 14,094 23,056 Bulgaria 205 3 208 Greece 8,585 592 9,177 Aegean Islands 1,186 377 1,563 Yugo-Slavia 158 11 169 Albania 2 — 2 Palestine 9,789 1,201 10,990 Turkey (in Europe and Asia). 2,586 482 3,068 Iraq 5,280 384 5,664 East Africa 4,726 14 4,740 Egypt 9,397 149 9,546 Germany 6,510 16 6,526 Great Britain 56,515 3,841 60,356 Ireland 3,123 172 3,295 Canada 150 2 152 Australia 13 — 13 New Zealand 1,791 — 1,791 South Africa 269 — 269 Newfoundland 69 — 69 Bermuda 45 — 45 British Guiana 6 — 6 Cameroons 389 16 405 Ceylon 64 — 64 Cyprus 29 — 29 Falkland Islands 21 — 21 Fiji 1 — 1 Gibraltar 301 — 301 Gold Coast 125 — 125 India 4,046 39 4,085 Kenya 508 2 510 Malaya 56 — 56 Malta 1,907 4 1,911 Mauritius 13 — 13 New Guinea 5 — 5 Nigeria 330 1 331 St. Helena 4 — 4 Samoa 12 — 12 Seychelles 1 — 1 Sierra Leone 107 — 107 Tanganyika 107 — 107 Togoland 36 — 36 West Indies 213 — 213 Afghanistan 5 — 5 United States of America 35 — 35 Arabia 131 2 133 Armenia 5 2 7 Austria 7 3 10 Azerbijan 48 8 56 Belgian Congo 1 — 1 Buenos Ayres 1 — 1 Caucasus 153 21 174 Chili 3 — 3 China 95 — 95 Czecho Slovakia 1 — 1 Denmark 53 14 67 Esthonia 15 — 15
— Identified. Unknown. Total. Finland 5 3 8 Gambia 1 — 1 Holland 128 189 317 Hungary 5 — 5 Ionian Islands 16 — 16 Latvia 26 1 27 North Africa 34 — 34 Norway 79 84 163 Persia 453 1 454 Peru 4 — 4 Poland 220 3 223 Rio de Janeiro 10 — 10 Roumania 17 56 73 Russia East 3 — 3 Russia North 405 — 405 Russia South 42 1 43 Senegal 3 — 3 Siberia 45 — 45 Spain 41 1 42 Sweden 42 31 73 Switzerland 84 — 84 Syria 1,111 71 1,182 Turkestan 8 — 8 527,150 152,756 679,906
The figures are not final and are affected by the result of investigations continuously proceeding.
For various reasons, registration is far from complete in Turkey, Iraq, East Africa, and some other countries.
In Great Britain there are many graves of men who died after discharge, and when the numbers of war graves among these are known the figures will be affected accordingly.
Queen Victoria School, Dumblane
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can arrange with the Scottish Educational Department to allow the local inspector of education at Stirling to inspect and report on the educational side of the Queen Victoria school, Dumblane; and will he see that at least some part of the educational staff is Scotch?
:Standing authority for periodical inspection could not be given, but I shall be glad to ask the Scottish Education Department to send a representative to visit the school. With regard to the last part of the question, I am informed that several members of the educational staff are Scots.
Scottish Troops (Edinburgh Castle)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will arrange that the barracks in the Castle of Edinburgh are occupied by a detachment of Scottish troops, and that these troops are in possession of full-dress uniform?
:The barracks in Edinburgh Castle have been evacuated, but the unit at Redford barracks, at present the Highland Light Infantry, will provide a daily guard. I regret that full-dress uniform for this guard cannot be authorised.
:Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not understand that the feeling in Scotland is very strong on this matter, and that people think that the barracks in the Castle of Edinburgh should be occupied by Scottish troops?
:Is there not another feeling in Scotland that this is a complete waste of good Scottish money?
:It is not "Scottish money!"
:I quite share the wish of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have full dress, but, unfortunately, it is out of the question at present, owing to the expense. It would not be possible to make this concession for Scottish troops and to withhold it from British troops.
:Can the hon. and gallan Gentleman tell us the difference in price?
:I will, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question.
:Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that, as the Brigade of Guards has got full dress for the capital of England, we should have full dress for the capital of Scotland?
:Is it the question of the cost of putting the barracks at Edinburgh Castle into a proper state of repair that has caused the action of the War Office and has given rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction in Scotland?
:No. The question of expense is the only question in connection with the provision of full dress. As between England and Scotland, Scotland gets her share of the advantage of full dress in connection with the Scots Guards, just as Ireland and Wales get it in the full dress which is given to the Irish and the Welsh Guards.
Rhine Army (Y.M.C.A.)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state why the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army on the Rhine has ordered the closing down of the Young Men's Christian Association centres in Cologne, in the Mulheim Barracks (West Yorks), Marienburg Barracks (5th Fusiliers), Riehl Barracks (Royal Field Artillery), Deiltz Barracks (14th Hussars and Royal Garrison Artillery), in the Rhine Army train (Royal Army Service Corps), Eifel Tor (R.A.S.D.), and in the 25th General Hospital; and whether, in view of the unanimous testimonies of commanding officers to the great value of these social centres in keeping troops in barracks, he will have inquiries made as to the desirability of allowing these centres to be reopened?
:It is understood that the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army of the Rhine, acting within his competence, has decided that the Y.M.C.A. branches trading within the precincts of barracks shall be closed, though every encouragement will continue to be given to the social side of their work within the barracks as well as outside, and the Commander-in-Chief is trying to make arrangements for Y.M.C.A. and Church Army ladies to help commanding officers in this respect. The value of the work carried out by these organisations is indisputable, and the Commander-in-Chief is prepared to give encouragement to their central establishments in the City of Cologne and to branches in the suburbs, where they can and do afford a very valuable counter-attraction to certain undesirable features of life in that city. There is no intention on the part of the Commander-in-Chief to disturb the central branches of the organisations. In this matter the Commander-in-Chief must be held to be the most competent judge of what is best in the interests of the troops under his command, and I am not prepared, therefore, to institute the inquiries suggested by the hon. Member.
:Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is due to the Army desiring the profits for the Canteen Board that this particular branch of Y.M.C.A. work has been cut down? If they are to carry on the social work, would it not be far better to leave the trading work also in their hands?
:I do not think it would be possible to admit that, unless they were prepared to accept the same liability as is accepted by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, namely, to supply the amenities in the bad stations as well as the good. It would be impossible for these outside bodies to operate where they can make a great profit, paying only three per cent, over to the regiment, against the eight per cent, paid by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, and to refuse to trade, as they would be inclined to do, under present arrangements, in the less profitable areas.
:Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the answer he has given to-day is directly contrary to an answer which he gave to me a few weeks ago, on misinformation which he had received? Is he also aware that the Young Men's Christian Association and the Church Army attach great importance to having their huts and canteens in the barracks? Will he say that merely for the sake of trade they are not to be put out?
:There is no question of putting these organisations out of the barracks for social work. It happens that I have just seen the Commander-in-Chief of the Rhine Army, and he is most anxious to come to an arrangement to get these ladies into social gatherings, classes, and so on in the barracks. As to the question to which I gave an answer the other day, I was not aware then of what had happened, and I understood the hon. Member's question to apply to the closing of institutes generally, which has never been done.
:Is it not true that the Y.M.C.A. has also to make some profit in order to afford to keep these social workers? Has the Army not to consider the moral welfare of the men as well as the financial welfare of a regiment?
:The Y.M.C.A. obtains large sums in the way of contributions from outside, whereas the Army canteens have to depend entirely on their profits from trading.
:The Y.M.C.A. has not enough money to do the work.
Military Police, London
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a number of military police are still kept on duty at London railway stations and in certain London streets; what is the object of having these men on duty; whether it was the custom to have military police on duty in London in pre-War days; and whether it is proposed to continue this practice?
:Military police have been on duty at certain London railway stations for more than 20 years, and I am not aware of any special reasons for discontinuing the practice. They are employed in supervising the conduct of the large numbers of troops who are constantly visiting or passing through London.
Territorial Army (Officers)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is a full complement of Territorial officers at the present time; and, if not, whether he will inform the House of the present deficiency?
:Apart from 89 colonels and 322 chaplains for whom there is no fixed establishment, the figures at present are establishment 7,969, strength 6,127.
:Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the figures for the City of Oxford, showing what has been done in this respect?
:I shall be very glad to do so if a question be put down.
Unemployment, Durrington
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the number of unemployed men in the Durrington district, he will instruct the military authorities to give fair consideration to their claims for employment when labour is wanted?
:Labour required by the military authorities is always engaged locally as far as possible, and I am not aware, therefore, that any special instructions are required. If, however, the hon. Member will give me the particulars of any case which he may have in mind, I will make inquiries, and communicate with him further.
Georgetown Factory (Disposal)
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he can give any information in regard to the disposal of Georgetown, Scotland; and whether the Board of Agriculture has examined this land with a view to its being utilised for small holdings?
:I am informed that the Disposal and Liquidation Commission have sold the area on which the Georgetown factory is situated on certain terms, which include conditions for the continued use of the houses under the control of the Office of Works. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The area does not, however, appear to offer good prospects for a small holdings scheme, as the land is largely occupied by buildings and foundations.
:Is it not a fact that this land is being used as a game farm, and that a good deal of the land, where there are roads and a water supply, would be useful for small holdings.
:That is the question which I have just answered. We examined it from the point of view of small holdings, and found it unsuitable.
Transport
Great Western Railway (Footbridges)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he is aware that on several occasions the Great Western Railway Company have been approached regarding the erection of a footbridge at the Aberysychan and Pontnewynydd Stations, respectively; that in December,1920, two persons were killed and one injured at the Pontnewynydd crossing, and at the inquest the coroner recommended the erection of a footbridge; and whether, in view of the danger to the general public at these crossings, he will make representations to the company concerned on the matter?
:I have been in communication with the railway company in regard to this matter, and I understand that they intend to erect footbridges at both the stations referred to.
Traffic Congestion, London
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport what specific action he took when his attention was drawn to the recent very serious traffic congestion in the Strand, Holborn, Oxford Street, St. Paul's Churchyard, and Blackfriars; and whether he made any representation to the local authorities concerned?
:As already explained in previous replies, my Department possesses neither powers nor staff enabling a detailed time-table to be imposed on highway authorities' operations in London or elsewhere. In the particular cases referred to by my Noble and gallant Friend, a member of the Ministry's staff was, previous to the inception of these works, in communication with officers of the Boroughs of Holborn and Westminster, but it was then found that no alteration in the programme was practicable.
:Are we to understand that the Government are going to do something, or are we to understand that, while the congestion may get worse and worse, the Government propose to do nothing?
:The Noble Lord must not assume that the Government intend to do nothing. The matter is receiving my very serious consideration, and I hope it may be possible to introduce legislation.
Road Fund (Allocation)
35 and 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (1) whether, in allocating the reported surplus on the Road Fund to the relief of rates for the upkeep of rural roads, it is proposed to make block grants to the appropriate local authorities, or whether roads will be classified or selected in order that they may he improved or more efficiently maintained, thereby becoming more suitable to carry motor traffic;
(2)whether in carrying into effect the Government decision to allocate certain moneys from the Road Fund to the relief of rates for the upkeep of rural roads, it is proposed to classify roads at present unclassified; and whether he will give an undertaking that only definitely specified roads, which carry a substantial volume of motor traffic, shall obtain the benefit of the proposed financial assistance?
:The amount which it is proposed to devote to rural roads is not a surplus in excess of the road requirements for a normal year, but becomes available because the receipts for 1923–24 are estimated to be sufficient to admit of this special allocation. The grants will be made in areas essentially rural in character in respect of improvement of classified or selected highways in order to enable these to support the heavy motor traffic now upon them. The present policy of classifying additional roads where the volume and importance of the. traffic justify that course will be continued.
:Will there be an opportunity for consultation with the principal road authorities before the allocation is made?
:We have been in consultation with the various authorities and we shall, very shortly, send out communications to all the local authorities on this subject.
:By how much has this surplus been depleted by spending money on the construction of new roads?
:Nothing has been depleted. This money will be available in this financial year.
:Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman answered the second part of Question No. 35, in reference to the classification and selection of roads?
:Yes. I have answered it, as the Noble Lord will see, if he reads my reply.
:Does the Minister propose to make provision for a continuation of this grant in ensuing years?
:I must answer that with the phrase, "Wait and see."
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he can give the amount of the grants made from the Road Fund to the City of London and each of the various other road authorities within the County of London area?
:As the figures are too long to read out, I propose, with my Noble Friend's permission to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
GRANTS MADE OUT OF THE ROAD FOND FROM 1ST APRIL,1922, TO 31ST MARCH, 1923. Area. Grants made in respect of maintenance expenditure on Roads and Bridges in Classes I and II Grants made in respect of works expedited to relieve unemployment. Grants made in respect of other purposes. Total. £ £ £ £ London County Council … 11,876 38,820 34,872 85,568 Metropolitan Boroughs. Battersea … … … 12,342 4,945 378 17,665 Bermondsey … … … 17,201 — — 17,201 Bethnal Green … … … 5,051 — — 5,051 Camberwell … … … 25,235 — — 25,235 Chelsea … … … 7,554 — 513 8,067 Deptford … … … 10,890 — — 10,890 Finsbury … … … 3,311 — — 3,311 Fulham … … … 13,836 — 253 14,089 Greenwich … … … 10,578 — 537 11,115 Hackney … … … 28,063 — 833 28,896 Hammersmith … … … 21,831 — 381 22,212 Hampstead … … … 11,963 — 217 12,180 Holborn … … … 8,966 — — 8,966 Islington … … … 11,875 — — 11,875 Kensington … … … 16,201 — 925 17,126 Lambeth … … … 27,504 — — 27,504 Lewisham … … … 8,367 — 14,125 22,492 Paddington … … … 4,647 — 500 5,147 Poplar … … … 12,468 — — 12,468 St. Marylebone … … … 29,902 — 258 30,160 St. Pancras … … … 10,625 — 306 10,931 Shoreditch … … … 4,550 — — 4,550 Southwark … … … 15,814 1,916 — 17,730 Stepney … … … 49,146 — 2,630 51,776 Stoke Newington … … … 3,257 — 43 3,300 Wandsworth … … … 11.672 233 969 12,874 Westminster … … … 54,097 — — 54,097 Woolwich … … … 7,619 — 1,794 9,413 Totals … … … 456,441 45,914 59,534 561,889
The City of London has not up to now applied for grants towards the maintenance of roads and bridges.
Road Work, Fovant (Wages)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with
:In the interests of rapid transport, will a special grant be made to Battersea?
Following are the figures referred to:
The following statement shows the grants made from the Road Fund to the various road authorities within the County of London area during the year ended 31st March, 1923. Information as to the grants made in previous years to these authorities is shown in the annual report on the administration of the Road Fund and the Road Improvement Fund:
the reconstruction of the road at Moor Hill, Fovant, leading from Fovant to Tisbury, he will sanction the full agricultural rate of wages being paid to the men employed there, and not 75 per cent. of the rate in the district, as laid down in his letter to the Wilton Rural District Council?
:I have already informed the Wilton Rural District Council that the men engaged upon the works at Moor Hill, Fovant, on the road from Fovant to Tisbury, may in the special circumstances of the case be paid the labourers' rate for the district.
New Roads
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport the total mileage of new roads in London and the country which has been arranged for by his Department; how many miles have already been open for public use; how many miles are expected to be opened this year; and if he will state, approximately, when the whole programme of new roads in hand will be completed?
:With regard to the United Kingdom as a whole, I regret that the information is not yet available, but I propose to publish it in the annual Report on the administration of the Road Fund for the year 1922–23. As regards Greater London, the total mileage of new arterial roads in progress or about to be begun is 141 miles, of which 108 miles are entirely new, while 33 miles are widened and improved highways. Of this total length 20 miles have already been made available for traffic. I hope that in the course of this year a further length of nearly 14 miles may be opened, and it is expected that the whole programme, comprising 141 miles, will be completed within two years.
Electoral Register
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for economy, he will consider the desirability of suspending, at all events for the time being, the preparation of a second register of electors each year; and whether he has received any representations on the subject from the great self-governing bodies of the country?
:I have been asked to reply. After full consideration, the Government have decided not to introduce legislation on the subject. A few local authorities support the proposal, but there is also strong opposition to it.
Turkey (British Subjects' Claims)
asked the Prime Minister if he can now make any further statement as to the settlement of the claims of British subjects for damages at the hands of the Turkish Government arising out of the War; whether the British Government has in hand a sum of money which ought legitimately to be applied to the settlement of their substantiated claims; whether this fact was made clear at the recent Lausanne Conference; and whether the Government will agree to guarantee some percentage of the unpaid claims if the banks will advance the money, thus giving a stimulus to British trade in the Near East?
:I am unable to make a statement in this matter, pending the conclusion of the Lausanne Conference.
Wireless Telegraphy
49 and 81.
(1) asked the Prime Minister if the Government has considered the serious condition of things revealed in a Return just issued by the Post Office of the high-power wireless stations possessed by the United States, France, Germany, and Great Britain; whether, in view of the danger to the British Empire arising from the backward condition of Great Britain in high-power wireless telegraphy, he will say what action the Government proposes to take;
(2)asked the Postmaster-General what action the Government has taken to give effect to the previously announced decision that licences should be issued to permit private enterprise to conduct wireless telegraph services with the Dominions, Colonies, and foreign countries?
:I have been asked to answer Question No. 49 addressed to the Prime Minister, and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, answer his question, No. 81 at the same time. The conditions of the licences for which the Marconi Company have applied are being discussed with the Company; and no time will be lost, so far as the Post Office is concerned, in arriving at a settlement. Meanwhile the manufacture of the masts for the proposed Government high-power station is being proceeded with, and orders for the rest of the plant will be placed as quickly as possible.
:May I have an answer to No. 49?
:I have already answered it.
:I did not recognise it. Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether, in view of the enormous imports of wireless telegraphy to the British Empire the right hon. Gentleman cannot hold out some hope that in the very near future we may be put on approximately the same basis as France and the United States of America which to-day possess the most powerful wireless outfits in the world?
:If my hon. Friend does me the kindness of reading my answer he may recognise it. I may inform him that, so far as the Post Office is concerned, there will be no delay in coming to a conclusion to enable us to proceed with wireless?
:Can the right hon. Gentleman give any tentative idea of the date when this decision will be made?
:No. It is a very important decision.
House Property (Income Tax Assessments)
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the difficulty of equitably assessing house property during the period of control exercised by rents legislation, he will postpone the operation of the new assessments on house property for the purposes of Income Tax and the Inhabited House Duty until after the 24th June, 1925, the proposed date for the decontrol of house rents?
:I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker) on the 8th May. I am sending him a copy of that reply.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that is not an answer; and is he aware that if the new assessment of house property is persisted in, it will have a prejudicial effect on new houses?
:It is very difficult to answer a supplementary question based on a reply which is not a reply. I can only say to the hon. Member that I think the reply was perfectly sound. The general question of reassessment of house property has been very carefully considered and a full statement—which would be impossible by way of question and answer—will be made on the Finance Bill next week.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the universal and deep-rooted discontent caused by this new assessment?
:I am quite aware that there is no universal discontent, and that discontent in the provinces is practically nil. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Note II on the back of the form notice of assessment of annual value of property for the year ended 5th April, 1923, regarding deductions admissible for repairs in arriving at the net value of houses and buildings, is incomplete in respect of allowances for repairs under the Rent Restrictions Acts; and whether he will have it altered so as to state these allowances completely?
:My hon. Friend appears to be under some misapprehension. The note to which he refers contains a complete summary of the provisions relating to allowances for repairs, maintenance, etc., under the Income Tax Acts, and it is these Acts which determine the admissible deductions in the assessment of houses and land for Income Tax purposes.
:In the case of a house, the annual value of which exceeds £48, will only one-sixth of the annual value be allowed?
:That is the present position.
Estate Duty (Crown Colonies)
59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Estate Duty is levied by the British Treasury on personal property in a Crown Colony forming part of the estate of a deceased person domiciled in Great Britain, and if, in such Colony, Estate Duty is levied also under Colonial law?
I would like to point out that the word "and" in the question has been inserted by the printer.
:Personal property situate out of Great Britain which forms part of the estate of a person dying domiciled in Great Britain is liable to Estate Duty under the Finance Act, 1894. The question whether an Estate Duty is also levied by the Crown Colony, in which the property is situate, depends on the system of Death Duty taxation which obtains in that particular Colony. I would, however, remind the hon. Member of the provisions of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1894, which are designed to limit dual taxation within the Empire.
:Perhaps the insertion in the question of the word "and" may have misled the right hon. Gentleman. My object was to know whether Estate Duty is levied both in Great Britain and a Crown Colony.
:Under Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1894, if a Colony levies a Death Duty, it is allowed for on payment of Estate Duty in this country. There is no dual levy.
:Is not my right hon. Friend under a misapprehension, because in the Province of Quebec, if Estate Duty be levied there and in England, no duty is recoverable for Legacy Duty in this country?
:May I remind my hon. Friend that the question related to Crown Colonies?
Munition Depot, Chester
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state if the sale of the munition depot at Dee-side, Chester, to the Anglo-Scottish Finance Corporation was effected by private treaty or public auction; what was the price at which the buildings were disposed of; and the original cost of the same?
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Ministry of Munitions' explosive store and refining plant at Chester has been sold; if so, what was the price obtained; and will he inform the House the total amount expended in building and equipping the same, and who was the purchaser, and for what purpose is the factory to be used?
:I am advised by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission that they still are unable to identify the property referred to, and that the Commission have made no such sale to the firm mentioned.
:Do I understand that no sale at all has taken place in the vicinity of Chester? Have no material and buildings in the vicinity of Chester recently been disposed of?
:The whole question depends on the distance which the hon. Gentleman would include in the word "vicinity." All that I say is, as I told him last week, that we cannot trace any such sale as that of a munition depot at Chester to the Anglo-Scottish Finance Corporation. If the hon. Member thinks he has got a mare's nest, will he give me particulars as to where the mare is?
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the public Press, in all the papers in this country almost, as a result, probably, of the Press associations' activities, references have been made to the sale of a munition depot at Chester to the Anglo-Scottish Finance Corporation, and is there any truth in those statements?
:We cannot correct here what appears in all the newspapers.
Gun Licences
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to increase the public revenue and to prevent an evasion of the law, he will take into consideration a revision of the present Regulations with regard to the issue of licences to kill game, so as to provide that holders of gun licences who are only able to shoot game occasionally shall be able to take out a licence to kill game, limited to a specific date, at a cheaper rate than is at present possible?
:This is a matter which primarily concerns the local authorities, to whom the proceeds of the game licence duties go in relief of local taxation, and who are for the most part responsible for their administration. As at present advised, I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
Consolidated Stock
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the serious position of many small investors whose patriotism led them to respond to the appeal of the Government in 1901 to subscribe to the issue of 2½ per cent. Consolidated Stock, he will consider the redemption of small amounts at least of such stock, or an exchange to some other form of long-dated security at five per cent., in order to relieve the said small investors, especially as an inducement was put forward in the prospectus of the issue that it might be paid off at par after April, 1923?
:No, Sir; I cannot undertake to give special privileges to particular classes of Consol holders, or uncovenanted benefits for which the tax-payer has received no consideration.
International Labour Bureau (Estimates)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the International Labour Bureau at Geneva is costing the British taxpayers over £30,000 per annum; and, in view of the absence of any benefits to the tax-payers, what prospects are there of a reduction in this expenditure?
:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Largely as a result of the efforts of the British Government representative, the proposed total Estimates for 1924 were reduced from 9,118,780 francs to approximately 7,000,000 francs. The Government are fully alive to the situation, and at next week's meeting of the governing body, His Majesty's Government will press for a still further reduction of this figure.
:Would it not be advisable to collect the money owing us from other Powers?
:Is not this organisation bearing a highly useful part in international relations, which is well worth this trifling sum of money?
:In regard to the first supplementary question? will inquire whether there is any amount owing, and try to get it in. As regards the second supplementary question, it is all. a question of whether we are getting our money's worth.
Imperial Economic Conference
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision of the Government not to give representation on the Oversea. Settlement Committee to the accredited representatives of British agricultural organisations, it is still intended to secure the representation of home agricultural interests at the Imperial Economic Conference: and, if so, when will the invitations be issued?
:I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Stone Division (Mr. Lamb), on the 11th December last, in which it was stated that the interests of British agriculture would be fully borne in mind in connection with the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference. As regards the question of representation, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the members of the Conference will be representatives of Governments and not of particular interests.
:Will the Prime Minister see that the invitations are sent out in sufficient time to enable agricultural organisations to give full and careful consideration?
:The hon. and gallant Member had better hand in that question.
Prohibition Laws, United States
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the prohibition laws of the United States and their effect on British shipping and the near approach of 10th June, he can now state what is the policy of His Majesty's Government on this question; and whether they will still adhere to the long accepted international practice under which the laws of its own flag govern and regulate the rights, duties and obligations on board a ship, whether on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of any other nation?
:His Majesty's Government do not contend that a ship entering the territorial waters of a country does not subject itself to the jurisdiction of that country, but, as a matter of international comity, such jurisdiction is not generally exercised except to restrain acts likely to disturb public order. No possible disturbance to public order in the United States nor injury to any other United States interest can arise from the existence of liquor under seal on board a ship in United States territorial waters. His Majesty's Government accordingly suggested to the United States Government that the proposed Regulation is one which might properly be discussed with the other maritime Powers before it is enforced, but I understand that the United States Government do not see their way to comply with this request.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of issuing instructions to the captains of British steamers trading in the Atlantic to put under seal all liquor before entering the territorial waters of America, and when in the territorial waters of America to submit to search and capture by the Americans of their liquor, provided the searchers are provided with the necessary search warrants by the United States courts?
:Is not a British ship, in point of international law, British territory, and, therefore, exempt from search?
:Do His Majesty's Government intend to accept the ruling of the United States Government?
:All these international questions had better be put down on the Paper.
Agricultural Wages
asked the Prime Minister when the Bill dealing with rates of wages in agriculture will be introduced and proceeded with?
:I regret that I am not yet in a position to make an. announcement on this subject.
:Does the Prime Minister realise that at the present time, when large sums are being voted for the interests of one section of agriculture, it is only reasonable that the interests of the labourers should be considered?
Concrete Ships
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many concrete ships are still in possession of the Government; what is their present condition: what is the cost of their maintenance: and what it is proposed to do with them?
:I am advised that all Government concrete vessels have now been sold. The remainder of the question does not therefore arise.
:Does that include the concrete ship on the mud at Cardiff which we were told a short time ago cannot be disposed of until the underwriters have settled with the Government?
:I have not inquired into the particulars, but should the hon. Gentleman desire, I will inquire into any particular case.
Government Surplus War Stores
68 and 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the sale of Government property by the Disposal Board has been suspended; if so, why:
(2)whether negotiations are in progress likely to lead to an agreement being made with a particular firm for the purchase of all Government property hitherto administered by the Disposal Board, to the exclusion of all other firms; and if he will state the reason for the adoption of such a course?
:Negotiations have been in progress for some months with various firms for the sale of a large proportion of the unsold surplus Government property in the hands of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission. A number of offers, some for purchase outright and others for sale on a commission basis, have been rejected as unsatisfactory. Negotiations are, however, being continued with two large firms jointly for the sale of these surplus assets on a commission basis. The two firms in question, owing to their wide experience and to their connections at home and abroad, are, in the opinion of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission, specially qualified to undertake this work. It is not considered a case in which competitive tenders could advantageously be called for.
As regards Question No. 68, a portion of the sales have recently been suspended, pending the result of the negotiations referred to. If those negotiations do not result in a contract within the next few days, the suspended sales will be resumed.
:Is it the policy of the Government to exclude the smaller firms from participating in the tendering for the property of the Disposal Board?
:No, Sir; the smaller firms have been open to buy for a great many months past, but the policy of the Government and of the Disposal Board is to close, if they can, and sell the whole lot.
:What ground has the right hon. Gentleman for his statement that competitive tenders cannot be invited for purchase of Government property? If the Government had got a firm of repute to sell the whole surplus stock of goods on a reasonable commission basis the Disposal Board could have been closed down long ago?
:Is it not the case that where competitive offers have been in operation, that much higher prices have been obtained?
:I could not say that it is not a question as between one and another firm. The question is that the Government desire, if possible, as the best way, to realise the whole matter on a commission basis. That is the proposal that we have before us now to see whether we can get rid of this material on that basis.
:Is it not the fact that the present system which the right hon. Gentleman advocates has been repudiated?
:All these stores have been, if I may say so, lying about for a long time, and the Government have tried to get rid of them piecemeal. Now we want to close the whole transaction, and get rid of them on a commission basis.
Irish Free State (British Government Stores)
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if account has been kept of the value of the property, stores, arms, equipment, aeroplanes, etc., handed by the British Government to the Provisional Government and the Free State Government of Southern Ireland; what is the total value of such property, etc.; and will a full statement be laid?
:A valuation is being made from the records kept of property transferred; but it will be some time before a complete financial statement can be compiled.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a series of questions have been asked as to the State of the financial accounts of the Irish Free State, and that these questions have always been evaded or postponed; and will he exert himself to obtain a statement at an early date?
:I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend does not mean any discourtesy, but I have not evaded the question. I have answered and said that a valuation is being made, and as soon as a financial statement can be compiled I shall be pleased to deal with it. If my hon. and gallant Friend wants me to inquire into any particular point, if he will write or speak to me, I will try and meet his desire.
United States Army of Occupation
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the agreement relative to the reimbursement of the American army of occupation costs requires the sanction of the House of Commons; and, if so, when such sanction will be sought?
:The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.
:Will these claims have priority to ours out of the Reparation Fund; and can that fund be alienated in this way without the consent of this House?
:This agreement makes no direct charge on the British Fund. I hope in a very few days to hear something further. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any further questions about British policy, I shall try and answer them.
:May I be assured that we shall have the opportunity of discussing the agreement when it is made?
:I cannot say that, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have the opportunity of asking as many questions as he wishes.
Customs and Excise Department (Superannuation)
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that officers of the Customs and Excise Departments due for superannuation under the age limit regulations at the commencement of the War continued to work through the War period, and while so retained received the same salary as at the date due for superannuation, no pension being paid during such employment, and that when superannuated they received the same pension as if their service had been terminated in 1914, being only allowed to count for pension the years of service prior to 1914; and will he consider whether their pensions could be calculated on the total number of years actually served?
:The officers of Customs and Excise referred to by my hon. Friend were temporarily reemployed during the War, after having been retired from the public service, under a signed agreement which laid down that such temporary re-employment could not be recognised as a ground for increasing the superannuation allowance already granted on retirement. I regret I cannot waive this condition.
Jute Industry Dispute, Dundee
asked the Minister of Labour if the representatives of the workers and of the employers in the jute industry of Dundee, invited by him to confer with his Department in regard to the lock-out in that industry, have accepted the invitation?
:The representatives of the workers in the jute trade in Dundee have accepted my invitation and are now in London; the representatives of the employers have found difficulty in coming to London to-day, but I hope they may be able to come down to-morrow.
Business of the House
Supply Days
asked the Prime Minister how many days it is proposed to allot to Supply during the present financial year?
:It is proposed to allow 21 days for Supply.
India Office Vote
asked the Prime Minister when the India Office Vote is likely to be considered?
:As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, this is a matter for arrangement through the usual channels.
Capitalist System (Motion)
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to give a date for the resumption of the Debate on the Motion relating to the Capitalist System standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Colne Division of York shire (Mr. Snowden)?
:I regret that, owing to the pressure of Government business, it will be impossible to give a day for this discussion during the current month. I hope, however, to give an opportunity towards the middle of July.
Derby Day
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that a Select Committee of this House has accepted the invitation of the Jockey Club to visit Epsom on Wednesday next, he will consider the desirability of reverting to the ancient custom of adjourning the House on that day so as to give other hon. Members an opportunity of studying the possibilities of a betting tax?
:The answer is in the negative.
:Does my right hon. Friend realise that it will be for this House, for him and for us, to consider the recommendations of the Betting Tax Committee, and that it will seriously interfere with our work if we cannot have access to the same sources of original information as the Committee?
:Can we be assured that the members of this Committee will not indulge in trying to "spot a winner" themselves?
Daily Sittings
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of the House commencing the Sitting at 2 o'clock each day, except Friday, and adjourning at 10 p.m?
:No, Sir. I do not think that the hon. Member's proposal is practicable.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now 17 years since a change took place in the Adjournment hour of this House, and is he aware also that there is a widespread desire in all quarters of the House for this change?
:No.
:When the hon. Member is a Minister, he will realise that there is not time enough now to do the work.
:Pending that very desirable event, would the right hon. Gentleman himself consider receiving a deputation from Members of this House on this very important subject?
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings in Committee on Agricultural Rates (Consolidated Fund) [Grants] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime Minister. ]
The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes,164.
Division No. 178.] AYES. [3.47 p.m. Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Ainsworth, Captain Charles Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.) Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Apsley, Lord. Button, H. S. Falcon, Captain Michael Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Cadogan, Major Edward Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Fawkes, Major F. H. Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W Cassels, J. D. Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. Astor, Viscountess Cautley, Henry Strother Flanagan, W. H. Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Foreman, Sir Henry Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W) Forestler-Walker, L. Balfour, George (Hampstead) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Chapman, Sir S. Furness, G. J. Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Churchman, Sir Arthur Ganzoni, Sir John Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Clarry, Reginald George Gardiner, James Barnett, Major Richard W. Clayton, G. C. Gates, Percy Barnston, Major Harry Cobb, Sir Cyril Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Cohen, Major J. Brunel Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Goff, Sir R. Park Benn. Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Gould, James C. Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Cope, Major William Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Berry, Sir George Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hackn'y, N.) Birchall, Major J. Dearman Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South; Gretton, Colonel John Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Blades, Sir George Rowland Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page Gwynne, Rupert S. Blundell, F. N. Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Bowdler, W. A. Curzon, Captain Viscount Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l, W. D'by, Bowyer, Capt. G. E W. Davidson, J.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead) Halstead, Major D. Brass, Captain W. Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham) Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Briggs, Harold Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) Harrison, F. C. Brittain, Sir Harry Doyle, N. Grattan Harvey, Major S. E. Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Du Pre, Colonel William Baring Hawke, John Anthony Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) Ednam, Viscount Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.) Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Henn, Sir Sydney H. Bruford, R. Ellis, R. G. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Bruton, Sir James England, Lieut.-Colonel A. Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Buckingham, Sir H. Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Hewett, Sir J. P. Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Molloy, Major L. G. S. Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Hiley, Sir Ernest Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Sandon, Lord Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Morden, Col. W. Grant Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Hood, Sir Joseph Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Shepperson, E. W. Hopkins, John W. W. Murchison, C. K. Shipwright, Captain D. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Singleton, J. E. Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Skelton, A. N. Houfton, John Plowright Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Hudson, Capt. A. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Stanley, Lord Hume, G. H. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Stewart, Gershom (Wirral) Hurd, Percy A. Paget, T. G. Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) Parker, Owen (Kettering) Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Penny, Frederick George Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Perkins, Colonel E. K. Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) Jephcott, A. R. Perring, William George Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Pielou, D. P. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Pilditch, Sir Philip Titchfield, Marquess of Joynson-Hicks, Sir William Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Tubbs, S. W. King, Captain Henry Douglas Privett, F. J. Turton, Edmund Russborough Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Rae, Sir Henry N. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) Lamb, J. Q. Raine, W. Waring, Major Walter Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Wells, S. R. Leigh. Sir John (Clapham) Reid, D. D. (County Down) Weston, Colonel John Wakefield Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Remnant, Sir James Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Rentoul, G. S. White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport) Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green) Reynolds, W, G. W. Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) Lorden, John William Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George Lorimer, H. D. Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) Winterton, Earl Lort-Williams, J. Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Wise, Frederick Lougher, L. Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) Wolmer, Viscount Lowe, Sir Francis William Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F.L.(Ripon) Lynn, R. J. Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Robertson-Despencer, Major(lsl'gt'n W) Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill-(High Peak) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Rogerson, Capt. J. E. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S) Roundell, Colonel R. F. Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward Manville, Edward Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Yerburgh, R. D. T. Margesson, H. D. R. Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth) Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Russell, William (Bolton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mercer, Colonel H. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Edge, Captain Sir William Hirst, G. H. Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Edmonds, G. Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Hogge, James Myles Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) Ammon, Charles George Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) Irving, Dan Attlee, C. R. Fairbairn, R. R Jarrett, G. W. S. Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Falconer, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Barnes, A. Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Batey, Joseph Gilbert, James Daniel Jones, T.I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Gosling, Harry Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Berkeley, Captain Reginald Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Kenyon, Barnet Bonwick, A. Gray, Frank (Oxford) Kirkwood, D. Broad, F. A. Greenall, T. Lansbury, George Brotherton, J. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Lawson, John James Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Leach, W. Buchanan, G. Groves, T. Lee, F. Buckle, J. Grundy, T. W. Linfield, F. C. Burgess, S. Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.) Lowth, T. Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Guthrie, Thomas Maule McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Chapple, W. A. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) M'Entee, V. L. Clarke, Sir E. C. Hardie, George D. McLaren, Andrew Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Harris, Percy A. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Collins, Pat (Walsall) Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Collison, Levi Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) March, S. Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.) Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Darbishire, C. W. Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Maxton, James Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Herriotts, J. Middleton, G. Dudgeon, Major C. R. Hill, A. Millar, J. D. Ede, James Chuter Hinds, John Morel, E. D. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) Mosley, Oswald Shaw, Thomas (Preston) Warne, G. H. Muir, John W. Shinwell, Emanuel Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Sinclair, Sir A. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Newbold, J. T. W. Smith, T. (Pontetract) Webb, Sidney O'Connor, Thomas P. Snell, Harry Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. O'Grady, Captain James Snowden, Philip Welsh, J. C. Oliver, George Harold Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) Westwood, J. Paling, W. Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) Wheatley. J. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) Phillipps, Vivian Stephen, Campbell Whiteley, W. Potts, John S. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Williams, David (Swansea, E.) Pringle, W. M. R. Strauss, Edward Anthony Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Rees, Sir Beddoe Sturrock, J. Leng Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Richards, R. Sullivan, J. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) Ritson, J. Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) Wright, W. Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich) Rose, Frank H. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Royce, William Stapleton Thornton, M. Scrymgeour, E. Trevelyan, C. P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sexton, James Turner, Ben Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Lunn. Shakespeare, G. H. Wallhead, Richard C.
ALDERNEY (TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, ETC.) BILL [Lords]
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
Rugby Urban District Council Bill
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Message from the Lords
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) Company; to alter the name of the company; and for other purposes." [South Staffordshire Mond Gas Bill [ Lords ].
And also a Bill intituled, "An Act for authorising the Mid Kent Water Company to construct new waterworks; for conferring further powers upon the company; and for other purposes." [Mid Kent Water Bill [ Lords ].
South Staffordshire Mond Gas Bill[ Lords ],
Mid Kent Water Bill [ Lords ],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee B
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Agricultural Credits Bill): Mr. Albert Alexander, Mr. Blundell, Mr. Noel Buxton, Mr. Cautley, Lieut.-Colonel Courthope, Captain Elliot, Mr. Mitchell,. Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Richards, Mr. Riley, Major Ruggles-Brise, Sir Robert Sanders, Mr. J. Hope Simpson, Mr. Skelton, and Sir Richard Winfrey.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Agricultural Rates Bill): Mr. Albert Alexander, Captain Brass, Mr. Noel Buxton, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Mr. Thomas Davies, Captain Elliot, Mr. Lamb, Sir Ernest Pollock, Mr. Richards, Mr. Riley, Mr. Charles Roberts, Sir Robert Sanders, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Major Steel, and Sir Richard Winfrey.
Standing Committee D
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Major Attlee, Mr. Charles Buxton, Captain John Hay, and Mr. Sitch; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William M. Adamson, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Shinwell, and Mr. Tom Smith.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (during the consideration of the Workmen's Compensation (No. 2) Bill: Viscount Elveden; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Allan Smith.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee D (during the consideration of the Workmen's Compensation (No. 2) Bill): Mr. William Greenwood, Sir Beddoe Rees, and Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Workmen's Compensation (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Bridgeman, Sir John Collie, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Emlyn-Jones, Mr. Gould, Mr. Greaves - Lord, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. Lynn, Sir William Raeburn, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Thomas Shaw, and the Solicitor-General.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Dentists Act (1921) Amendment Bill and the Rating Returns Bill): Sir Arthur Marshall; and had appointed in substitution: Dr. Chapple.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Merchant Shipping Acts (Amendment) Bill): Sir George Berry; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Charles Cayzer.
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Merchant Shipping Acts (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Emlyn-Jones.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Orders of the Day
Supply
[9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1923–24.
CLASS VI.
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £44,655,246, 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, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, and the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921."—[NOTE: £29,000,000 has been voted on account ]
4.0 P.M.
:Knowing the very great interest taken in all parts of the House in the question of war pensions, I have spent many hours in endeavouring to condense into as short a space as possible what I have to say, but there is an enormous amount of information which ought to be given to the Committee on this occasion, which is remarkable because it is the first Debate we have had on the Ministry of Pensions Vote for a period of over three years during which I have been connected with the Pensions Ministry. The general principles of the pensions system of this country were laid down by the co-operation of and with the approval of all parties in the State in the last Parliament, and these principles were confirmed during the Debate on the Address in this new House by a majority which far exceeded the party strength of the present Government. I will endeavour to give to the Committee a short summary of the present position of our pension work. The highest point of expenditure was reached in November, 1919, about a year after the Armistice, and since then, for more than three-and-a-half years, there has been a continuous and very steady decline in the expenditure. In the last few months, however, the decline in expenditure has been slowing down and the rate of reduction is not as fast as it used to be. The actual expenditure, giving it in round millions, was in 1920, £106,000,000; in 1921, £95,000,000; and in 1922, £82,000,000. That was the actual expenditure in those years. This year we are making an estimate which is as near as we can possibly calculate to what we think the actual expenditure will be, and we are estimating for an expenditure of £73,655,246. While, therefore, the reduction last year was 13½ per cent., this year it will be only about 10½ per cent.; or in total figures, last year the reduction was £13,000,000, and this year it is less than £9,000,000. There is a common idea that we are cutting down pensions this year by £16,000,000. That is a very natural delusion. It is quite inaccurate, and it is due to the fact that we have had in the past very large over-Estimates. We are now better able to judge the cost of our work. The actual reduction this year—£8,844,754—is the smallest reduction in any year since the decline in our expenditure began. The rate of reduction, as I say, is slowing down. We have had in the past very little basis for calculating future expenditure, but now we have far more material to guide us, and it is possible, from the records of past years, to measure the probable effect of a variety of causes which influence the volume of our work and the amount of our expenditure. The principal decreases have been in the cost of administration—that is the most rapid fall—and in the cost of pensions. I will take these two items in turn and endeavour to give not only the amount of the reductions but also the causes which have brought them about.
The cost of administration of the Pensions Ministry shows, as it ought to show, a large decrease. Last year there was a decrease of £1,300,000 on the expenditure of the year before—a most remarkable reduction—and we have estimated for a further reduction this year to a total of £3,598,000, or a decrease of £602,000, so that the actual cost of administering the Ministry of Pensions has been brought down in two years, largely by reforms and by better forms of procedure, by an amount equal to nearly £2,000,000 a year. I claim that it is a very great reform to save £2,000,000 a year in the cost of administration. Not only does it cost less absolutely, but it costs less proportionately on the amount expended. The House has been informed that the cost of administration of the Ministry of Pensions, apart from medical service, is only 9d. in the £. Including the medical services, the cost of administration in 1921 was 1s. 2¾d., in 1922 it was 1s. 0¾d., and this year it is estimated that it will be 1s. ¼d. in the £. Therefore, not only is the cost of administration low, but it is coming down and becoming a smaller percentage of the amount disbursed. The two chief causes are reductions in the numbers of the staff, largely through the simplification of the work, and reduction—this is a lesser item—in the salaries and bonuses of the staff in accordance with the decreased cost of living. We are dealing with a war which is becoming more distant, and it is only natural that the work of the Ministry-should become less.
:You are economising at the expense of the discharged soldiers.
:I do not understand the hon. Member's remark, but I think the whole House will agree that of any given sum voted for pensions the more that goes to the ex-service men and the less that goes to the cost of administration the better. Fewer claims are coming in now, and therefore fewer have to be examined. There are fewer medical examinations, and therefore less staff. For example, new claims for compensation from officers and men are now little more than half in number what they were even a year ago. We have reorganised and simplified the processes of work in the various branches of the Ministry, and so have reduced the staff employed. For example, as I have already explained, the work of the Pensions Issue Office has been greatly simplified. We are giving pensions for longer periods, and we are having medical boards, where they are still necessary, at intervals of a year, whereas some time ago these medical boards were held in half the cases every six months. All this simplification of the work is better for the pensioner and costs less in administration. The number of the paid staff of the Ministry was at its highest in July, 1920. We then had 32,091 paid staff; we have now, taking the end of the last financial year, 31st March, 1923, 23,552, so that there has been a reduction in the numbers of the staff of 8,539 or 26·6 per cent, since July, 1920. I think that is a very satisfactory result. I may say that we have 14,197 men employed in the Ministry, of whom over 97 per cent, are ex-service men. The women employed are mainly, if not entirely, nurses engaged in hospitals, typists, office cleaners, and others whose work is suitable for women. With regard to the proportion of ex-service men, it was recommended in the Lytton Report that not more than one-third of the temporary clerical staff should be non-service. We have exceeded the proportion of ex-service men recommended and have done better than the terms and recommendations of that Report, because all our employés except 24·5 per cent. are ex-service men. Therefore, we have done well, and have done our duty in employing ex-service men.
The question of local administration as affecting staff is one in which hon. Members opposite are interested. I will not dwell on this at length, but there can be no question that the House was right in approving of the reforms which we made. With the lessening of claims, the old local committee organisation was becoming unnecessarily elaborate for the work which it had to do, and it was essential that the Minister who was responsible to Parliament should have control over the money paid out; otherwise, he could not be held responsible to Parliament. The intention of the Ministry and of Parliament was to make real the Minister's responsibility for public funds, and, while relieving the committees of responsibility for the money expended and for a mass of routine, to give them for the first time the express duty of hearing complaints, both individual and general, over the whole sphere of pensions administration. The number of committees has been reduced to 166, but the number of local pension officers is not 166, but 450. It is our desire and intention that the staff in the local offices should in every way deal sympathetically in their personal relations with the men who come to them for help, and we are sending out inspectors to ascertain how far that proper intention is being carried out. Some time, however, must be allowed to elapse before the new system can be fairly tried. The first of the new committees was set up only a year ago, and the last only at Christmas, 1922. We find already that the Committees are getting on well with their work.
I may say that before the House met in February, on my own initiative, I consulted my Central Advisory Committee, which consist of Members of Parliament of all parties, representatives of the ex-service men, and representatives of the voluntary workers, to whom pensioners and the country owe so much. We consulted them as to how the new system was getting on, and we have continued to consult them, because we want their help. As a result, we have sent out instructions to all local officers telling them to make it clear that every complainant or applicant that, if he or she be not satisfied and desires that the case should go before the Committee, they must see that this is done. Another concession has been made, which, I think, will be welcomed by hon. Members. Voluntary workers' expenses necessarily incurred in doing the Ministry's work will be repaid. I hope that that will bring more voluntary workers where we want more. Moreover, we are issuing leaflets, stating in plain language what the pensioners and those associated with the work of the Ministry require to know. I think I may repeat that we have endeavoured to send out to Members of all parties in the House pamphlets and literature, on the subject of pensions, to help them in dealing with the mass of correspondence which they get. We have tried to help Members in all parts of the House in that way. It was suggested in the recent Debate that the Regulations governing the Committee's procedure unnecessarily restrict their action. I may say that the Regulations have been working for over a year and that we have had no serious complaint from the committees about them, but we have endeavoured to meet the suggestions that were made in this House. The Regulations governing private sessions of the committees have been removed. The matter will be left to the discretion of the committees. Case-papers in the local offices will be available at committee meetings to the committees, unless the chairman agrees that in the interests of the pensioner or of the complainant they should not be disclosed. We have arranged that the committees may meet as often as they consider necessary. It will be within the memory of the House that it was said that we were restricting the meetings of the committees. I understand that in no case have meetings of a committee been restricted. In many cases we have sent out requests that the committee should meet more frequently. So far from restricting their meetings, we are encouraging them, and we hope that this will have good results.
I now come to the largest sum in the Vote which we are discussing. It is the main item for pensions and allowances. It is, of course, the largest item in our Estimates, and the estimated cost of these for officers and men, widows and dependants amounts in 1923 to £65,533,000. This is made up of £35,833,000 for disabled officers and men, including allowances during treatment; £21,350,000 for widows of officers and men and orphan children; and £8,350,000 for dependants. Each of these items shows a decreased expenditure, but in each case that decrease is only a natural continuation of a process that has been going on for the past three years, and the rate of decline is slowing down. We are compensating for the effects of a war that is over, and the factors making for increases, such as new claims, are naturally outweighted by the factors making for reductions, such as improvement in the health of the pensioners. I will give to the House the complicated reasons which influence the amount of our pensions expenditure. Some influence the expenditure upwards, and some influence it downwards. For example, the factors making for decreases are the deaths of pensioners or of their wives and children. This has been a steady factor. These were 13,300 last year, which, I am informed, is not a high proportion, considering that the men are ill and the large numbers involved. Another factor making for decrease is the children growing up and passing beyond the pensionable age. Last year they numbered about 14,000. This factor will have an increasing influence to lower the Vote. The third large factor is the recovery or improvement of disability—recovery of the men shown on medical examination. Making for increases are two principal items. The first is fresh claims. This, as the War gets more distant, is naturally a declining factor, and in 1922 there were 45,000 new claims as against 81,000 the year before. It has come down nearly half. The other factor making for increase is the case of men who are getting worse and who are getting larger pensions as the result of medical boards. The biggest factor making for decrease is undoubtedly the recovery of the men or the improvement in their disability. Now I come to another point.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has been the total increase in these cases?
:Those who have got worse and have been given more actually for deterioration of disabilities, as a result of these Medical Boards, number 56,000. If you stop the Medical Boards it means that the men who are getting worse will not receive any more pension while those who are getting better will receive more than they should do. The reduction due to Medical Boards is becoming less and less, and it is not the case that the Boards are cutting pensions down rapidly. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] Perhaps the hon. Member will listen to the figures. I think his interruption shows that he is prejudging the issue. The figures for 1919 show that, as a result of the examinations by Medical Boards, the average reduction of assessment over all the cases examined during the year was 8 per cent., whereas the reduction last year was 3·9 per cent., showing that, so far from the hon. Member's interruption being justified by the actual facts, the average reduction at present is less than half the reduction made over three years ago.
:Have you the figures for the intermediate years?
:In 1919 the reduction of assessment by medical boards was 8 per cent.; in 1920 it was 5·3; in 1921 it was 4·2, and it was at that point that the House decided to give increased powers to the Ministry to make final awards of pension. This year the reduction by medical boards is still less. It is an average reduction of 3·9 per cent, on the assessments. There have been charges that secret instructions were sent out to cut down pensions. That was inquired into by a Committee on which there were a number of ex-service men and also Members representing every party in this House, as well as representatives of the voluntary workers. The Committee, after hearing the fullest evidence and making every possible investigation, came to the unanimous decision that no such secret orders were issued, and that therefore the story is untrue. Not only is it untrue, but I can hardly imagine anyone of intelligence believing it, because how could instructions be sent out to thousands of doctors and be kept secret? Does anyone really think that men of the medical profession would so lower their professional standard of honour as to alter their own opinions on cases and cut down pensions in response to secret instructions from anyone? Moreover these medical men on the Medical Boards are not full-time officials of the Ministry, though they too do their duty. They are in the main men of the medical profession exercising their ordinary vocation. The Medical Boards are only a part of their work, and it is obvious that they as honourable, straightforward men would come to a decision in all honesty in assessing the men sent before them. Of those who sit on our Medical Boards no fewer than 95 per cent, are ex-service men themselves, and the others are chiefly specialists whose help is welcomed both by the pensioners and by the Ministry. [An HON. MEMBER: "What percentage of these medical men served overseas?"] I will get the exact figures later on if necessary. I think hon. Members will agree that whether they served overseas or not, they all had from their service with the Army exceptional opportunities of getting into touch with the work of the Army and with the disabilities incurred during the War. There are between 3,000 and 4,000 of these doctors serving on Medical Boards at the present moment.
There is some misunderstanding as to the basis of pensions. Pensions are, as I have already said, compensation from the State for injury. I disagree profoundly with a critic, I think it was a magistrate, who attacks us because we had not cut down the pension of a man who was in employment. The principle upon which we act is that we seek to compensate a man for his loss. If, for instance, he loses an eye, we assess him at 50 per cent. If that man can get a good job and good wages, well, good luck to him! We refuse to cut down his pension in consequence. Moreover, if you are going to link up the rate of the pension with the rate of employment you will have to watch and see that when a man is unemployed his pension is put up and that it is cut down when he gets back to work. We do not want to have to watch these men; we do not want to cut down their pensions because they get a job. Unemployment should be dealt with as unemployment, and pensions should be dealt with as compensation to a man injured during the War. Unfortunately, this point has been rather prominent during the last two years, because our pension work has coincided with a time when unemployment has been very serious in this country. One can fully sympathise with the difficulty in which men may be placed when, finding themselves much better, they go on to the labour market where it is so difficult to obtain employment. We still maintain the right to compensate a man for disabilities incurred and to leave him free to earn wages as high as he can without any deduction being made from his pension.
There is this further very interesting point to which I wish to direct the attention of the Committee. As a result of the medical boards the decline in assessments, as I have stated, is getting slower and slower. The main decline is among the cases of lesser disabilities. The numbers of the more severely disabled men change very little. For instance, the number assessed between 100 per cent, and 70 per cent, shows a decrease on the previous year of only 8 per cent., whereas the number assessed at 30 per cent. and under is cut -down 20 per cent. It is the more seriously disabled men who are not getting better; it is among the lighter disabilities that these reductions are occurring, partly because the men come off the pension list altogether. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are getting rid of them."] The hon. Member says we are getting rid of them. I may remind the Committee that commutation of pension has been frequently urged upon us by hon. Members opposite. [ Interruption. ]
:I hope that hon. Members will allow the Minister to proceed with his statement without interruption.
:It is not the case that we want to get rid of these men. We do not believe in commutation, for, although at the moment it may seem the better for the man, in the end it leaves him without any pension and with his disability. I think therefore the interruptions to which I have been subjected are not altogether founded on fact. In other words, while the number of pensions at the higher rates are slowly tending to become less, the change in the pension list is mainly amongst the less disabled cases, and that is a direct result of the medical and surgical treatment which has been given. I do not wish to take up time now by alluding to the medical work of the Department, but I should like to say how much the nation and the ex-service man owe to the skill of the medical profession and the devotion of the medical staff for the work they have done. If necessary, these points can be brought out later in the Debate. The numbers of men on pensions have declined. Last year the reduction was 276,000, and a good deal of that was represented by men on the final weeks' allowances. This year the reduction is very much less. It is 168,500, and the gradual improvement in the rate of disability is the main reason for this reduction.
Now I come to another point which I think has never yet been publicly stated. When hon. Members or anyone suggest that we are actuated by evil motives, and by a desire to cut down pensions, I would ask them to cast their eyes away from the scene of their party activities. Let them look at Canada. There we find almost exactly the same results occurring as I have been describing here. In Canada and in this country there has been but little change in the numbers of badly disabled men, while it is among those with less disability that the main reduction has taken place. In Canada the new claims are falling off. During 1920–21 the reduction was from 6,000 to a figure a little under 2,000. In Canada the number of disability pensioners has declined 35 per cent., fewer pensioners were drawing pensions last year as compared with two years before. Therefore I submit to the Committee that the foundations laid by this Ministry were well and truly laid. We are not achieving an exceptional drop; we are only in the middle of a steady decline. The figures I have read to the Committee are almost identical with the figures which we have obtained from Canada as to the result of their work there. In New Zealand and Australia the same causes are producing the same effects, and the decline is very similar to the decline in this country. It is interesting to note that the causes which are producing certain effects here are producing the same effects overseas among the pensioners in our Dominions. [An HON. MEMBER:" Can you give us the figures for overseas?"] I have no figures other than those I have mentioned, which show that the number of pensioners in Canada had fallen by 35 per cent. in the course of two years.
Again, the pensions for dependants show very little change. Taking the parents and other dependants together there is hardly any reduction in money. It has fallen from £8,560,000 in 1922 to £8,350,000 this year, a reduction of £200,000. The numbers are practically the same. The number of parents and dependants last year was 362,000; this year it is 355,000. In view of the fact that many of these people are old, that change can, I think, be easily accounted for by the natural fact that some of them no doubt are no longer alive.
With regard to widows' and children's allowances, here again we come to a figure which is wonderfully stable. In 1921, 1922 and 1923 the figure was in every case approximately £21,500,000, the exact figure this year being £21,350,000, so that these widows' pensions and children's allowances has shown hardly any change in the course of these three years. None the less, keeping to my point, there are various influences at work. There are, making towards reduction, three things. Firstly, there are deaths of widows. These were 472 last year, and this figure at the moment is a diminishing one. Then there are re-marriages, which are also a diminishing quantity. There were 8,600 this year, as compared with 12,000 last year. As regards children, there are a number who are reaching and passing the pensionable age. No doubt the fathers were mostly young, and the children are mostly quite young, so that this has not much effect on the gross figures. Only 5,000 were affected in the past year, but this is a factor which will increase. The factors which make for an increase are claims which arise on the death of married pensioners or other ex-service men, and the increase of the pensions of widows on attaining the age of 40. This is a very considerable item. As the House is aware, when a widow reaches the age of 40 her pension is increased by one-third, and this factor must operate steadily to maintain the cost of widows' pensions for some years, since the average age of pensionable widows is only 37.
I now come to a very important point, namely, the question of widows' claims and the seven years' limit. This is a matter which had been already engaging the attention of my right hon. Friend who preceded me. I continued consideration of the question, and in the present year we have effected a solution which, I think, is not generally known to the House. A very remarkable change has been made and I will explain to the Committee what it is. The change in the actual Warrant is of a very highly technical nature, but its result is that now there is no time limit whatever to the possibility of the widow of a pensioner drawing pension at the full rate of Article 11, if her husband's death can be shown to have been wholly and directly the result of his war service. This change has been only recently decided upon by the Government, and I think it will be a matter of general satisfaction to the Committee. The time limit of seven years will, in future, only operate to prevent a widow drawing pension at the full rate of Article 11, where either the man never claimed a pension himself during his own lifetime—that is reasonable—or where the disability from which he suffered was one which did not arise out of his war service at all, and for which he himself could not have got a pension, or where other conditions and factors of civil life, or other diseases which had nothing whatever to do with his war service, really caused his death. Even, however, where other conditions might have operated to accelerate his death, nevertheless, his widow will get a pension of an adequate amount under Article 17, if it can be shown that the lingering effects of his war service had anything to do with his death. These concessions will, in the Judgment of the Government, settle equitably the claims of widows; and I have ascertained, from inquiries of regional directors and those concerned in the administration of war; pensions, that, in fact, they are working satisfactorily. Of course, while these are questions of great difficulty in dealing with the technical side of the Warrant, it seems to me that what really matters to the pensioner is, does he get his pension? I am glad to be able to say that out of 120 claims—and, after all, all claims cannot be granted, all claims are not just— out of 120 claims which have arisen in the past 18 months in connection with the seven years' limit, 76 have been settled by the award of pensions which could not have been awarded but for this change. In the remainder of the cases, the man's death could not be said to be the result of his war service. I brought that in at once in connection with pensionable widows, so as to keep the subject connected.
:The Minister has given us some very interesting and welcome information. May I ask him whether that is a decision of the Government within the last few days, or is it the decision that was arrived at in January?
:Yes. It is not a decision arrived at within the last few days; it is a decision which, as I know from personal experience—I do not suggest-that anyone is to be blamed for it—hardly any Member of the House was aware was arrived at in January. Not only has this been done, and a very considerable number of claims dealt with, but a large proportion of the claims have been actually granted and the pensions are being paid. In justice to myself, I should say that I could not inform the House in January because the House was not then sitting. The decision was, therefore, published in the press and acted upon, in order that we might get the pensions started, and I have taken this opportunity of a discussion on the Estimates to make it clear that not only have we made this concession but that the pensions are being paid.
:Does the new Article 17 only apply in cases where the husband was in receipt of a pension of 50 per cent., or does it apply to any widow of a man who was assessed at less than 50 per cent.?
:The decision to which I refer applies to all cases.. I will deal with the matter more fully at the end of the Debate, but it applies to cases where a man dies directly as the result of his war service.
:Is a widow receiving 30 per cent, eligible?
:Yes, certainly, if the widow has a good claim.
rose —
:It is impossible for the Minister to make a connected statement if he be interrupted in this way. The Debate will go on for the whole of the evening, and the Minister, no doubt, will reply.
:I have prepared a much more detailed statement on this question, but purposely condensed it because I was anxious to allow as much time as possible to other hon. Members who may wish to take part in the Debate. I have two or three more points to refer to. With regard to the stabilisation of rates, as the Committee knows, since the last Estimates were brought in, the rates of pension have been stabilised for a further three years. This means that the increased rates of pension for officers, men and widows, which were granted for three years at the end of 1919. because of the very high cost of living, will remain in force for a further three years, until the end of March, 1926. The Government took this decision at the instance of the Ministry itself. There were, however, certain classes of a special kind to which those terms did not apply, such as alternative pensions and treatment allowances which were not covered by the Government grant. These the Government reserved for further consideration, but they decided that no change should be made when it fell due last April, and the pensions and allowances are being paid at the old full rate, and no change is in contemplation. I think the Committee ought to be made aware, however, of the actual figures. These concessions have meant that for the current year the Government have deliberately foregone a reduction of expenditure amounting to approximately £8,000,000, and a saving of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000, at least, for each succeeding year up to 1926. This is not evidence of economising at the expense of the pensioner. It is a very curious and interesting point that one of the results of this country's paying its way, having Budgets that balance, and not relying on paper money or on loans to an exceptional extent, is that the value of money goes up, and among the classes which are benefiting—perhaps the one class which has benefited every single time—is that of the pensioners of the Great War. While their pensions remain constant, the purchasing power of those pensions goes up. That is one of the results, if I may say so with much respect, of sound financial methods in the Budget.
The Committee will know that we took power in 1921 to make final awards. That sets free from anxiety the man who gets a final pension for life, and the Committee will be interested to know the extent to which the Ministry has used the powers conferred by Parliament in this regard. The number of statutory final awards last year, in cases of 20 per cent, and upwards, was 129,000, and in cases under 20 per cent., 181,000; so that, up to the 31st March last, about 310,000 final awards of pensions and life pensions have been made. I am glad to say that the number of life pensions—that is to say, not final weekly allowances, but pensions given for a man s life—has shown a steady increase. At the present time 60 per cent, of all final awards are life pensions in cases of 20 per cent. and upwards. I think that that is a satisfactory feature. Having dealt with the stabilisation of rates, and having shown that we have not only stabilised rates but are stabilising the pension itself and the assessment, I want to deal with the question of stability generally. I want to make it as clear as I can that in my opinion the policy of the Ministry must be directed now to one end, namely, the stabilisation of the whole. We have passed the period of change. Shortly after the War we were faced with a flood of claims. They came in by the thousand, and temporary awards were made. We might have done as some other countries did, namely, have waited until we got the whole thing finally settled before making the award, but we thought it better to give a temporary award on the basis of such evidence as was available. Obviously, however, in order to get pensions out quickly and get the matter dealt with, we had to use methods which occasionally have led to error, and, therefore, we have had to go through our cases and see where there were examples which it was impossible to justify—examples of pensions given which not one Member of this House would have given or would seek to defend. It is not a part of our work that we like, but it has been our duty to go through the cases and sec whether the entitlement was sound, and whether the rates awarded were proper. We desire to cut down as much as we can of that sort of checking and reopening of cases, because, on principle, stability is the right and proper condition for a scheme of compensation that is based upon a past event. You cannot go on for ever changing the rates at which compensation for past events will be given. It is not, like the Workmen's Compensation Act, an instrument for dealing with current and future changes. It is for dealing with the past only, and, if you change the principle of compensation long after the event to which it relates, you make everything uncertain. To-day our policy is throughout in the direction of stabilisation.
The question of stabilisation carries with it certain corollaries. As Minister, I am bound to see that pensions which are made stable are properly justified, and so, as I have said, we have been engaged upon a review. We want, however, to end this review, even at the risk of continuing some pensions which were not properly allowable, because the disabilities concerned were really not connected with the War. I have been able, with the consent of the Treasury, to make arrangements which will bring this process of review now very rapidly to an end, and in no case hereafter will there be any change of entitlement to pension unless it is clear from the evidence that the award was palpably wrong on the evidence at the time when it was made. A change of medical opinion will in no case suffice to justify a change of entitlement. The question of stability affects both pre-War dependants and War pensioners. It was our duty to go through the dependants' allowances given to parents, and we have found certain claims which could not be maintained. For instance, we had one case of a man who claimed to have been the sole support of his parents before enlistment. He claimed that he had given them 18s. a week, and upon that they based a claim for dependants' allowance. Actually it was found that he neither lived with them nor had ever contributed to their support, although when he stayed with them, he occasionally gave them 10s. for his keep. In another case the maximum pension was granted to the parents of a man on the ground of destitution, but it was found that he was an employer of labour, the possessor of a comfortable business, and paying Income Tax. Such cases as these, in which a high pension has been drawn without need or justification, cannot go on, but I am glad to say that we are coming to the end of this review, and, as I have said, I think the keynote of our future work ought to be stabilisation and security for the pensioner. Finally, it is my opinion that in all the entitlement cases of every kind and class review must come to an end as quickly as possible, and it is my hope and intention, if it is possible, to secure that there shall be no review or reconsideration of entitlement to past awards after the end of the financial year. There must be security for the pensioner, and even if we have allowed not wholly justifiable pensions in a few individual cases we have now come to a point where the aim of our policy must be stabilisation and security of award for the pensioner. I feel confident that I shall have the support of the House in carrying out that policy.
5.0 P.M.
:I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I should like to offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and late colleague for the wide, able and comprehensive view he has given us of the work of his Ministry. I think the House will be with me when I say there can be no more complete justification of the attitude of those on this side of the House at the last General Election when we resisted, on the platform and off it, the abolition of the Ministry over which he presides. If the House of Commons wants one thing definite and clear it is surely this. Men who have served in the War and have endured should have the right to come to the Floor of the House and place their grievances before responsible Ministers. I was glad to hear at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that there is to be no more review of entitlement after the end of the financial year. I wish he had gone a step further and told us something which I know he feels at heart about the cry there was that the rates of pension were to be reduced. I believe £2 a week, which is the amount at present being given to a totally disabled man, is not a penny too much, and I, and those with whom I work, will strongly resist any attempt on the part of any Government to reduce the total disablement benefit lower than £2 a week. The Ministry of Pensions have at all times been criticised. Criticism is to be expected, for, after all is said and done, the right hon. Gentleman is at the head of the greatest administrative Department in the country. There is not a house in England, Scotland, or Wales which is not directly or indirectly connected with the Ministry of Pensions, and at one time, when Minister of Pensions, it was possible for me to say, if I took the whole population of Scotland, all those men, women and children were on the books of the Ministry of Pensions. Or, again, take the seething populations of Glasgow, take Dundee, take Manchester, take Birmingham, take Southampton, and realise to yourselves the men, women, and children in those five great towns, and that will give you some idea of the work of the Ministry of Pensions. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly plain that the administration of the Ministry of Pensions was based upon two things—first of all compensation for war disability, and, secondly, the desire to restore a man who has been disabled back into the walks of industry.
With regard to compensation, it is obvious what the policy of the Ministry must be. The man who has a right to compensation should be fairly and liberally assessed, and that assessment should be promptly and efficiently paid. I think it is the view of every party in the House, certainly it was mine, that wherever there is any doubt in the assessment the man should in every case get the benefit of the doubt. I am glad my right hon. Friend has once again made it plain that no secret instructions have ever been issued attempting to reduce pensions. Why should temporary officials of the Ministry, 97 per cent. of whom are ex-service men, send out instructions to brother ex-service men to do a mean trick of that kind? Whoever is Minister of Pensions knows perfectly well that every legitimate claim of any servant of the State who has served and endured will be met willingly by the State. If the claim has failed, I hope we shall hear later on from my right hon. Friend or his colleague that every assistance is given to the claimant to pursue his statutory right to go to the independent tribunal. That tribunal was created by a unanimous House of Commons. The two people who appear before it have equal rights and no more. The Ministry of Pensions has its right and the claimant has his, and I think the Ministry should continue, what I believe it began to do, to give every possible assistance to the claimant. I believe I was the first to start the giving of the same précis to the claimant as the Appeal Tribunal itself had. That précis ought, in my judgment, to be made as simple as possible. Get rid of all technical difficulties and medical terms so that the humblest ex-service man in the country, or his widow, can read it with ease and understand it.
I should like if possible also to give the ex-service man who claims before the Independent Appeal Tribunal every possible assistance from the point of view of giving him a friend to accompany him. I am no great believer, though I am a lawyer myself, in having counsel appearing before an appeal tribunal of that kind. I had far rather get a voluntary worker in the locality, man or woman, and, indeed, preferably a woman, to accompany the claimant, and I think the time has now come when we ought to consider the advisability of paying the railway fares of these voluntary workers when they accompany these men to the appeal tribunal. I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend has no intention of reducing any further the areas under my Act of last year. I was glad to hear that in administration so much had been done, no doubt largely, he would agree, because of the reforms in that Act. I think 160 is probably the right number of areas. If you reduce them further I am afraid you will eliminate the voluntary worker. I have an idea that in every town there should be a voluntary worker, called a Soldier's Friend, and now that the areas have been so reduced, and I believe in the interests of efficiency and economy, I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend does not propose to reduce them any further. It was obvious that something had to be done at that time. When I became Minister of Pensions those voluntary bodies had the control of an expenditure of £20,000,000 a year without any control on the part of the Ministry of Pensions, and it was quite obvious that as the work was becoming largely stereotyped the time had come when the great army of officials in the country dis- tricts might and could legitimately be got rid of and the State should come in and have a guarantee that the money so readily given in the interest of the ex-service man should be fairly and justly expended.
While my right hon. Friend dealt at some length with his first principle, namely, compensation—not public relief, but compensation where compensation was due—I should have liked him to deal with a side of the problem which greatly interested me during my term of office. I refer to the side which I call restoration. In the old days the pensioner was very often a derelict on the ocean of life. He had at most his 6d. a day. He may have lost an arm, he may have spent his days and nights trying to earn an honourable living, shouldering his crutch and showing how fields were won. But the pensioner in the old days had very little done for him. He was satisfied if on a market day he got 2d. for holding the head of the farmer's horse. Under the new dispensation a good many things have been done. In 1919, under the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) the amount of the pension was increased to an amount greater than is paid in any other country in the world, and that was the desire of the State. Indeed, during the last three years of the late Government there was no less than £386,000,000 spent in pensions. What the Ministry attempted to do on the side of restoration was in my judgment very fine work. We attempted by means of convalescent centres and workshops to train every man who could be trained to some form of work or employment, and I can vouch for the fact that these convalescent centres have been a great boon. No ex-service man who can work at all ever desires to be dependent upon charity. All he wishes, if it is at all possible to reinstate him in the walks of industry, is to be so reinstated, and by his own endeavour and his own skill so acquired to hold his head up among his fellow-workers in industry. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is still the policy of his Department to maintain those convalescent centres. We on this side are sincerely anxious that that side of the policy of the Ministry of Pensions should not only continue but should, if possible, be developed.
I want to know further whether clinics are being established all over the country. A great many men who try to work cannot go into hospitals. There should be clinics in every big town, and even in county centres, to which men after their working hours could go and there find available the best medical treatment. I hope there is no intention of cutting down treatment in any shape or form. My right hon. Friend gave a very significant figure. He said that in the review of pensions the men who were going off the list were those who had the lowest assessment. That is as it should be, because during the last three years we have spent no less than £58,000,000 on medical treatment, and I think the State willingly paid that, but the State in justice ought to get a return for the money so spent. The only return to the State should and ought to be the giving of real health to the men so treated, and that as many as possible should be made healthier and stronger men. That is all the return the State wants.
I should like to be assured once again, in regard to the final award, given in the Act of 1921, that where a man, who gets his final award, and accepts it, and does not appeal, becomes ill again because of his war disability, the State will give him his previous treatment in every way. I hope I can be assured about that. I introduced in that Act the system of final award. I found that the perpetual review, three, four, and five times a year, of a disabled man was irritating, offensive, and dislocating labour. Before this Bill was introduced, I lengthened the period of review to six months or a year. I, for one, naturally do not believe the criticism that was made with regard to the reviews, because I found that the medical boards did their work extremely well; but I am told that some medical boards, in some parts of the country, are hurried in their diagnosis, and are ruthless and rough in their treatment. All I can say is that that was not my experience. I say, further, that that is a state of affairs that this House will never tolerate, and I am perfectly 'certain that under the guidance of my friend, Sir Lisle Webb, these boards are doing their work admirably. I should like, however, for the sake, of the Ministry, that they should reassure themselves, and that when a complaint of any kind comes from any quarter of the House, immediate and effective investigation may continue to be made.
In the course of the Debate we got from the Minister of Pensions a statement to the effect that the Ministry had no desire to commute pensions. That was my own personal view. I think, save in the most exceptional cases, there should be no commutation of any sort or kind, because the moment any pension is commuted, except in the most exceptional cases, the money goes in three or four months. The man has nothing to show for it, or his family, and very likely he goes about and says, "This is the way I am treated by a generous Government." Except in cases where the local committees strongly recommend a man of high character, who is starting in business, or a man of vigorous physique, who wishes to go abroad and wants Something for his passage money, I implore the right hon. Gentleman to continue the old policy of the Ministry and to resist commutation. While I am dealing with this particular point, I should like to refer to a matter raised the other day in the course of questions. I refer to the questions of over-issues and repayment.
Over-issues occur in two ways, honestly or fraudulently. I do not think anyone in this Committee would justify any ex-service man or dependant accepting or trying to get an over-issue fraudulently. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider the whole question of repayment where an excess of pension has been honestly appropriated. I think he should continue with my own policy. I believe I made it a rule that no pension of that kind should be taken out of the weekly pension and paid back in that way after a year; but if the pension is to be paid back by the pensioner who, very often, is drawing a very small sum, it ought to be done by weekly payments of the smallest amount, if at all. I think the State would willingly surrender its right— because it has a right, after all is said and done, to money which goes wrongly into other pockets—in exceptional cases of that kind to draw a certain sum from the small pittance given weekly to pay for the money so expended.
I come to the question of the seven year's limit and the widow. I tell my right hon. Friend frankly that those with whom I am associated, on this side of the Committee, regard that as a most important matter. If I did not introduce the seven years' limit, I certainly advocated it, because I believe that in the case of a man seven years is a long time for him to maintain his right to claim his pension. If a man be demobilised in 1919 with a clean sheet, and does not claim a pension, and goes on for seven years without claiming a pension, I think that is a long enough time for a limit. In other countries the limit is only two years. We made it seven years, and every right-thinking man will regard that as a fair limit. In every case of compensation in civil life there is a limit of that kind. Take workmen's compensation. There the limit is six months. I frankly say that I am a strong believer in the seven years' limit. The other case, which is more contentious, and which is causing a great deal of concern to those with whom I. Work, is that of the widows. I believe that the widows, when their claims are established, are very fairly treated. I look at the sum which was spent last year on widows alone, and find it amounted to £20,000,000. Therefore, as a general proposition, the State cannot be accused of illiberality or lack of generosity so far as they are concerned.
There are two other cases where the desire of the State to be generous to ex-service men's widows is quite obvious. If a disabled man dies within the seven years, without claiming his pension, the widow is then entitled to her full pension. Again, if within seven years the pensioner dies, and the disease from which he dies, which would never entitle him personally to a pension, commenced in service, the State steps in and gives his widow a pension. As I understand it, the concern of many of my hon. Friends consists in this, that if, after a time limit of seven years the pensioner dies, the widow in all cases is not entitled to full pension. I understand, under this new concession, which is, I believe, an extension of Article 17, that the widow, in every case where the husband's claim to entitlement pension was granted, would be entitled to full pension rate. There are other cases where, naturally, after a long period of time, a great many causes are conducive to the man's death. The disease from which he died was very likely inherent in him before service, but it was in some degree aggravated by his period of service. In that case the contention of the Ministry, as I understand it, might very likely be that the man might not have died because of war disability, but from a combination of causes which prevail in the civil population just as much as in the ex-service population. Therefore, under Article 17, there is a discretionary power. I hope, in the course of this Debate, that my right hon. Friend or my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary will explain exactly how far the new Order carries us.
Let me deal with one or two other smaller points, if I may so describe them. I was supposed to be responsible for the number of ex-service men who are now in the asylums. It is well that the position should be made clear to the House of Commons. In the course of the War a Warrant was passed, having been submitted to this House, in which special dispensation was given to men who had all sorts of diseases, not due to the War This was a special concession made to these men, that they should be treated or kept either in an asylum, if, unfortunately, they were mentally afflicted, or in an infirmary or hospital if they were physically afflicted, for the duration of the War and a year more. Unfortunately, the War brought a great many cases of that most terrible of all diseases, mental affliction. We had no less than over 6,000 cases of that kind in hospital, apart altogether from neurasthenia. There were, unfortunately, 700 of those men whose disease was not attributable to and could not be proved to be attributable to, War service. Under this Warrant of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge)—who, as I have said before, is a kindly and sympathetic man—the time came when this concession had to end. Many expected it to end in 1919. But it was retained till 1922.
When the time came nigh, under this Warrant, for these men to leave these hospitals and asylums, if they could not be proved to have a disease attributable to their service, the Ministry of Pensions did everything in its power to help. It informed the relatives, and told them of the right they had to appeal, and by my own special instruction I asked the superintendent of each asylum to sit on the Board, and to do what he could for these men. There are still, I am sorry to say, about 200 or 300 in these asylums. I do not know if my right hon. Friend has finished his inquiries about them, but he can take it from me that if there be any way of proving that their disease is attributable to their service, he will have the support of everybody in the House in giving them their rights.
:Yes, even if he stretches a point.
:Yes, if he stretches a point. I should like to ask about one other matter in which I was personally interested. I want to know what the Minister is doing about the children and dependants of ex-service men? In my time as Minister of Pensions, there were about 40,000 who were indirectly in the care of and dependent upon the Ministry of Pensions. There were, I think, three or four thousand children who were neglected, and who, therefore, came under the guardianship of the Ministry of Pensions through the Court. I made it a policy that none of these children should go into institutions. All of them were to be boarded out in the homes of respectable people, and I want to know whether that policy is being continued, and how many children, if any, are kept in institutions. If they are kept in institutions, I would ask my right hon. Friend to arrange that they should be boarded out in respectable families, and so have some home life, as soon as possible.
May I ask what the Ministry of Pensions is doing in regard to the Lytton Report? I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that of all Ministries his Ministry has the largest proportion of ex-service men serving in it. It is a great compliment to find that 97·7 of the temporary officials of the Ministry are ex-service men. It is a good and wise policy to carry on the policy of the last three years and never to appoint a woman into the Ministry when there is an ex-service man available. I frankly believe that the Ministry of Pensions is really anxious to understand our problems and difficulties. No Minister worthy of the name objects to criticism, but it must be fair, and it must be just criticism, in the interests of the pensioner and of the State. I remember well when I happened to be Deputy-Secretary of State for War and wounded men came home, dressed in biue, it was the easiest thing in the world to get hundreds of high-powered cars and fashionable ladies to take the men about. Many people in this country are apt to forget great services, but whoever forgets great services we who represent the State in this greatest of all Assemblies ought to be the guardians and the defenders of the legitimate rights of these men. We ought to do that with sympathy, with courage and with determination, sympathy for all who fought, whether their claim is right or whether it is wrong, courage to say that a claim is wrong when we know it is wrong, and determination to see that the intentions of the State to be just and generous to those who suffered by serving it shall prevail. I beg formally to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
:I am glad to have an opportunity of entering into this Debate, although I feel somewhat at a loss.
:If it would be more convenient for the hon. and gallant Member to speak sitting, I am sure the Committee would be willing to agree to that.
:I thank you, Sir, but I propose to stand, for a rest. I feel somewhat in a difficulty in following two such eloquent speeches as those delivered by the Minister of Pensions and the right hon. Gentleman who was the Minister of Pensions in the last Coalition Government. Naturally, they have made a very great study of this particular question. I should especially like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Macpher-son) upon covering so many of the points in connection with the ex-service men's problem. My experience is somewhat different. I represent, perhaps, the largest family of those with whom the Ministry of Pensions has to deal, namely, the disabled ranker. I joined the British Army as a private, and I am not ashamed of it; in fact, I am rather proud of it. It is true that I rose to the dizzy height of a sergeant-major, but that, I think, was probably on account of my knowledge of the language, and not for any particular fondness for rum. I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this Debate, because I have had a varied experience. I have been one of the voluntary leaders of ex-service men throughout the country for the last five years, and during that time I have come into touch with many cases of acute distress amongst many of my old comrades. In adding what little I can to this Debate, I hope the Committee will realise that I am not trying to press forward the ex-service men's problem in any interests of my own. Some people are rather inclined to advocate the ex-service man's case, shall I say, in their own interests. I worked on behalf of the ex-service men before entering this House, and had I never entered this House I should have continued to work on behalf of ex-service men. Although one deplores the fact that there has to be such an organisation as the British Legion, I think everybody will agree that the British Legion has done a great deal for the ex-service man. The ex-service man would find himself, undoubtedly, in a worse position to-day were it not for the organisation of which we have at the head that very gallant Field-Marshal, Earl Haig.
It would be difficult to find a more sympathetic Minister of Pensions than we have to-day, and I would like to see some of his permanent staff in the Civil Service showing some of that sympathy which he possesses in dealing with the ex-service men. We all realise that it does not altogether lie in the Minister's hands, but that it lies, to a great extent, with his staff. I should like to put a point to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the seven years' time limit. I do not propose to deal very largely with that, because I shall leave it to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Fairfield Division of Liverpool (Major Cohen). I am not quite clear whether this limit has been abolished or whether it lies at the discretion of the Minister to deal with whatever particular cases he likes. We contend, and I speak as an official of the British Legion, that the seven years' limit should be done away with. Take the case of a man wounded and disabled who desires to insure his life. Very few insurance companies will take him as they would take a fit man. They always deduct a certain number of years off his life. Next September, it will be eight years since I was wounded. Unless I could convince an insurance company that my life was perfectly sound in spite of my disability, they would deduct a certain number of years from my life.
I would like to quote two cases in regard to the seven years' limit. One man, a husband, was discharged on the 21st January, 1916, and died from chronic bronchitis on the 20th June, 1922. The pension was refused because he died more than seven years from the date of his removal from duty, on the 22nd March, 1915. The widow claims that subsequent service between March, 1915, and January, 1916, must have aggravated the disability, but the Ministry ruled the claim out of order because of the seven years' limit. There is no right of appeal against the seven years Clause on the question that the subsequent service aggravated the disability. Here is another ease. A man died on the 9th February, 1916. During his lifetime the Ministry refused his claims to pension, but the Appeal Tribunal upheld same, and the pension was accordingly granted. He died on the 9th March, 1923, and the Ministry refuse the pension because he died one month after the seven years' limit had expired. This man was in receipt of 100 per cent, pension from the 12th March, 1920, until he died on the 9th March, 1923. There is no appeal so far as that is concerned, unless I have a definite assurance from the Minister that it becomes statutory law.
The late Minister of Pensions referred to the medical boards. I can speak from experience of medical boards, because I have been attending them ever since 1916. I would suggest to the Minister, who has assured the Committee that he wants to give every sympathy that he can to the pensioner, that there might be more sympathetic treatment given by the medical boards. One may speak from experience as a Minister, but somebody else may speak from their experience of the man who has to appear before those medical boards, and some of the boards that I have appeared before were not quite as sympathetic or as friendly as they might have been. That is backed up by the fact of the number of cases that have been refused pensions and turned down by the medical boards, and the number of cases that have been won before the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal when the cases have gone before the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal, and these men have fought their cases, assisted by somebody who knew something about them. I sug- gest that every time these medical boards have cases before them they should give the man the benefit of the doubt. My experience and my knowledge of the question has been that it has been otherwise, and that the men have not received the benefit of the doubt.
I was glad to hear from the Minister that 95 per cent. of the doctors sitting on these boards are ex-service men, because there must be a certain amount of feeling between ex-service men, whether they were doctors or whatever they were. But I remember when I was discharged from the Army that my main examination at my first medical board consisted of being asked where I was working and what I was doing and what I was getting. As a result of that examination my pension was reduced by one half. As a result of an agitation, in which I was one of the agitators, that system was abolished and a man's pension was based on his disability and not on his earning capacity. If that still exists today, then I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why these medical boards still ask whether a man is working or not, so that before they have finished with him they extract from him the name of the particular place where he is working. I am looking forward to my next medical board to see if they will ask me if I am working and where I am working.
In reference to War Pensions Committees, I would suggest that the Press should be permitted to be present at the meetings of various sub-committees when individual cases are discussed, because I believe that, to a great extent, it is the pensioner's strongest hope that, after all, he has public opinion behind him, and that we should leave it to the committee and the Press to deal effectively with any of these cases which come before them. I believe that this will not only help the pensioners, but that it will also help the Ministry of Pensions so far as their administration is concerned.
A great many people are not quite satisfied with the tribunals as set up at present. So far as I understand, the British Legion is satisfied with the composition of it, but the difficulty with which those people who come before the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal have to contend is that in many cases they are not able to state their own case. One part of the work of the British Legion has been that it has a staff of ex-service men, who have made a study of these questions, to represent these men at the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal, and they have been so successful that they have gained 69 per cent, of the cases that went before that tribunal. This branch of the work is very expensive to the British Legion, and, while the Ministry might suggest that somebody should be appointed from the Government to represent these particular cases, the average ex-service man would say that he did not want anybody from the Government to represent him, because he is too suspicious of the Government. May I suggest, though without any authority from the British Legion, that the Ministry might agree, in view of the advantage to the men in being represented in this manner when they cannot put their cases as well as they might, in the interests of ex-service men, to subsidise the British Legion in this work. We have paid or are paying our debts to America, and that is just and right, but we owe a debt to those who served their country during the War, and who to-day find themselves in such distrustful circumstances, and I consider that especially those whose lives perhaps are not so bright as they might be, because physically they are not so fit as they were before they went to fight for their country, should get sympathetic consideration not only from the Ministry of Pensions but from the country generally.
:I am sure that the Committee has heard the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Pielou) with very great pleasure. For myself I was delighted to hear that clear, forceful statement of his, which I think for the first time has brought this Debate down to the realities of the situation. It would not be difficult for the Minister of Pensions, in supporting his estimates, to paint a very fine picture of the work that has been done by his Department. The right hon. Gentleman made the best possible use of the material at his disposal. This country entered into the work of alleviating the conditions of the ex-service men, the wounded and the broken, with an enthusiasm which was second to nothing in any country in the world. I have seen nothing compared with the good will and the enthusiasm shown by people of all classes when we began to build up the local committees- I think it was possible when dealing with the Ministry of Pensions' side to say that on the medical side alone a claim could be made that there have been permanent gains of knowledge in dealing with nerve diseases, and that indeed there have been so many gains in the direction of dealing with men brought in in various ways that I have been sorry to see a tendency to close down the Ministry hospitals, because I was once hoping that those hospitals would be used not only for giving treatment to the men who have been broken, and whose nerves have been shattered, but also for continued research work along the lines which the Ministry of Pensions has found so useful medically.
Having said that, I wish to say that when the Minister of Pensions was speaking, and also when his predecessor in that office was speaking, I was putting my hand up to my head to see whether I was sleeping or not. Everything in the garden has been lovely. They have said all that could be said for the Ministry of Pensions. Where are all these complaints that have been made during the past 12 months? No one seems ever to have heard anything about them. For instance, I may refer to letters in "The Times" from two of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters. In one of them the Member for Barrow (Mr. D. Somerville) says: Police Court. A poor woman had been threatened with ejectment from her house because she had not sufficient money to pay her rent. She said that she had had two sons who had been killed in the War, and that the Ministry had failed to pay the pensions. The magistrate said that these things ought not to be possible if the Ministry is doing the work which it claims. He said:
:May I tell the hon. Member that that statement ought never to have been made, as it is absolutely false.
6.0 P.M.
:I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, but this is what was said by the magistrate, speaking from experience:
"The Ministry of Pensions dislike publicity above everything, and I always notice that when a case of theirs has been mentioned in the Press they put it right. If this case is published I have no doubt that the woman will get her pension within a week."
I have drawn attention to those cases to bring the Committee back to the realities of the. Situation, and to show that, however beautiful that side of the shield shown by the Ministry of Pensions may be, there is a very dark side to it, so far as the country and the pensioners and their dependants are concerned. The Minister made the point that there were reductions in the Estimates to a considerable amount due to reductions in the cost of administration of the pensions. I agree with that, but I would ask the Committee to look at page 24, and onwards, of the Estimates. Take the Secretariat, which is composed of 45 chiefs and 30 clerks. There has been no reduction in the Secretariat. There are six chief secretaries or secretaries and assistant secretaries. All have about £1,000 a year. There are six officers who have over £700 a year, and there are 33 other officers of the higher grade. There are 45 officers, superintending 35 clerks, and out of about £40,000 there is a reduction of £2,000, which has resulted chiefly from the dismissal of some men.
I wish particularly to draw attention to one fact: It is said that 97 per cent. of the men who administer pensions are ex-service men. That statement is true. But where are the 3 per cent? I asked the right hon. Gentleman some months ago. They are in the Secretariat. The greater number of these men, who are the chief men of the Ministry, are non-service men. I would be the last to point to that fact, because, although men are non-service men, it does not mean necessarily that they will deal unjustly with ex-service men. But when the right hon. Gentleman makes a point that 97 per cent, of the men are ex-service men, I reply that the 3 per cent, of the administrators are 100 per cent, more than the other 97 per cent, in power. What is it that these people do? They are the people who make the Regulations; they are the people who send out the private memoranda in interpretation of the Regulations. They are, in the main, though not wholly, responsible for those Regulations and modifications of Regulations which, in spite of the strong case made by the Minister of Pensions, have gone far to modify the actual effects of Warrants. I remember hearing one of the Chiefs of this Department giving evidence before a Select Committee last year. He said, "Candidly, I do not like Boards and Committees." I am not surprised. I have not been surprised at the Regulations issued to local committees by one who has that outlook.
We have this secretariat of 45 persons supervising 30 clerks. It is composed chiefly of non-service men. In that Department there is no reduction of expenditure, as far as these individuals are concerned. I want to know exactly what work the secretariat does? Is it not possible that there is no actual need for them? There are the heads of all the branches of the Ministry. Why cannot the heads of the branches meet the Minister directly, together with the permanent secretary? Take the Accounts Division, which deals with the financial side of the Ministry's work. The greater part of the financial work, I understand, has been put upon the Regions; yet here the Accounts Division has 183 extra people engaged. There is less work, for some of it has been unloaded on to the regions. There are millions of pounds less paid to pensioners and there are hundreds of thousands fewer pensioners. Take the Pensions Issue Office. It has discharged 1,000 temporary clerks, but there is no alteration in the heads of the Department. Take the Awards Branch. It has been reduced by more than one-half in temporary staff, but again there is no reduction of the heads. Go to the Statistical Branch, where there has been an increase of 30 in personnel. So one might go on. It is quite true that there has been a reduction as far as administration is concerned, but it is always the bottom dog who has gone down. There is not a single reduction in any branch of the higher paid service.
Take the Regions. You have the same thing occurring there. Here are the Regions with men in charge who, in many cases, have pensions that are bigger than their salaries. Earl Haig mentioned the matter last week. He pointed out that while there were men at the head of the Regions and in other places doing work of a purely nominal nature, there were ex-officers and men who were totally unemployed. I have here the figures given to me by the Minister of Pensions concerning quite a large number of men. Here is one who has £l,800 a year and a pension of £525. Here is a Regional Director who has £1,000 a year and a pension of £1,040 a year. Here is another Regional Director who has £900 a year and a pension of £1,000 a year. Another Director has £800 a year and £1,000 a year pension. Another has £850 a year and £600 a year pension. So one could go on in every case. When asked, the Financial Secretary said very solemnly, and looked as though he believed it, that these men have very important duties to perform. I dare say they have. As far as I can understand those duties, I am reminded of the man who said: "Whenever you have a job that you do not know anything about, always look wise and say nothing." As far as the Regional Directors are concerned, I make this statement: The chief work probably falls upon the Area officers. In any case I prophesy that if the Minister would, he could find work for some of the ex-officers and men in place of those who have large pensions. They will not suffer, but it will mean more than life to some of these officers and men if they get anything like decent posts.
Having said that concerning the administrative side, I want to come to grips with the right hon. Gentleman on his statement that there are no secret instructions sent out which have had an effect upon the pensions. The right hon. Gentleman may not call these instructions secret. As a matter of fact, until about two months ago this House had not the slightest idea of the Regulations; there was no publication or book of up-to-date Regulations. I am not sure that even after two months the book is up-to-date, for fresh Regulations are issued every day. These instructions are secret as far as the majority of the Members of this House are concerned, and particularly as far as the people whom they affect are concerned. Here is a private Memorandum sent out on 3rd January, 1923. It is a copy of instructions, and it is not the kind of thing that gets into the hands of the average Member of this House:
"REGIONAL DIRECTORS IN ALL REGIONS.
Death Certificate in Ministry's Hospitals.
Memorandum to Regions, No. 40, 26th October, 1921, emphasised the importance of careful and accurate completion of all death certificates and corresponding entries on the record cards. It has recently been brought to notice that in certifying the death in a Ministry hospital of a pensioner whose disability was supposed to be myalgia, the medical officer stated the cause of death to be rheumatism and heart disease, when as a matter of fact the clear cause of death was cardiac degeneration, which had no connection with rheumatism or myalgia, neither of which had any influence in causing his death. The widow was thus able, on wholly inadequate grounds, to make a claim for pension, and the ensuing difficulties are obvious."
When we raise a case in this House of a man who, we think, has not got justice, the right hon. Gentleman always says: "But the medical report was against him." Here, when there is a very awkward decision given and a widow has ground for a claim, the Ministry sends out a private Memorandum warning the medical men against being too loose in giving decisions. I will take the question of the change of diagnosis. Here is the case of a man during the last 12 months. There have been some 3,000 cases of people who have had their pensions stopped owing to a change of diagnosis. There is a well-known case of a man who had been receiving a pension for nearly five years. This man was given a pension for valvular disease of the heart, but about four and a half years subsequently a different diagnosis of his case was made and he was lowered from 50 per cent, to 30 per cent, and, as the result of an appeal, he finally lost his pension altogether. There is a man who receives a pension for nearly five years and then the doctors find they have been wrong altogether and say to him, in effect, "You have been getting money under false pretences and you have not been troubled with valvular disease of the heart at all, but with something else. "So his pension is lowered, and he finally loses it altogether. Let me draw attention to other private Memoranda which are sent out. Until last year, it was the regular practice for a woman when her husband died to be transferred automatically to the widows' branch. Her pension went on automatically, but it does not do so now. Now she must make a claim. That was a private arrangement made, according to which no action is to be taken until the woman claims. You have, again, the chief area officer of the Ministry being told that he must not inform a pensioner or claimant of the benefits to which they may be entitled. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman face these matters? I want to call his special attention to them. In the case of a widow, whereas formerly she got her pension automatically when her husband died, she must now make a claim, and in the case of a man who is entitled to claim, the area officer is privately told that he must not inform that pensioner of the benefits to which he may be entitled. He is also told that he must not advise these people to make claims; that he is the servant of the Ministry, and that he may give the information only if it is asked for.
In the old days, when the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) was Pensions Minister, and under previous Pensions Ministers, I remember, as one of a local committee, that we always had it drilled into us that we must help the people to make out their claims, and surely anyone who knows the people, knows very well that even with the strongest case they need help in stating that case and making it clear. Let me bring the hon. and gallant Gentleman to another instruction. This instruction is that if a man be on treatment, he must not be sent up for re-certification unless he makes application for it. Here is the actual quotation. It is from a Regulation:
"In the case of a man who has been certified to be unable to work in consequence of and during treatment, the chief area officer on the expiration of the period for which the man was certified, will not refer the man again for examination during the period for which treatment is authorised, unless the man applies to him for a continuation of treatment allowance."
The man may be ill; the man may be fully entitled to further treatment and may require further treatment, but he must not be given it unless he applies for it. Let me refer to still another instruction which has been sent out. In January of this year the medical branch issued instructions that medical superintendents must be very careful in the event of a man dying in an institution. This refers to the letter which I quoted before in regard to the causes mentioned in death certificates. There is another warning that if a man has money due to him, the Pensions Issue Office should not inform him of the fact. If no claim is made the money is forfeited. We have had the case of a man who asked the Pensions Ministry for an advance of £10 to save him from having his furniture taken away, and they refused, when, as a matter of fact, they had £15 in hand at the time belonging to the man.
In November a further statement was sent out with regard to the final awards. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think, made the charge that we, on this side, supported the commutation of pensions. As a matter of fact we did not do anything of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Pensions will remember that, during the passage of the 1921 Bill, one of the things which was supported from all sides of the House was his determination to stop commutation and by none was it more enthusiastically supported than by the Members on these benches, because we had some experience of it. Final awards are in a different category altogether. I have never been satisfied in my own mind that the final award is a good thing in the sense of really making an award for two years or for 70 or 80 weeks. I am not sure of that policy at all. I want, on behalf of all on these benches, to warn the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he may be making trouble either for himself or some future Minister in regard to this matter. It is undeniable that there are men being put down to 70, 80, or 104 weeks' final award who are no better now than they were 12 months or two years ago, and when they have finished their period there will be the scandal, in all parts of the country, of men who will then be left in the same position as they were in previously, or it may be in a worse position, as a result of their wounds. I have myself seen a man who had got 70 weeks' final award bare his leg and show a gunshot wound which was obviously suppurating and would be a trouble to him for years to come. I wish the Committee to mark this point. The boards were informed in a circular issued in the latter part of November that they were showing undue hesitation in making final awards. They are expected to make final awards, the Regulations say, and the inquiry officers under the Old Age Pensions Act at the present time. Yet the Ministry of Pensions has handed on the same instructions to their officers for inquiry into need pensions.
I asked a question on Thursday last about the Newcastle, Hexham and District War Pensions Committee. An inquiry officer had gone to inquire about some old people and he had ascertained, and had included and estimated for the fact, that they got occasional meals from sons and daughters. I was informed that the officer had been reprimanded, but as a matter of fact if one reads through these instructions it is quite easy to see that an inquiry officer is merely doing his duty by doing that which, in this case, was said to be an exception. The officer may be a very good man and may be very sympathetic towards his fellow ex-soldiers and their dependants, but there is not much room for sympathy inside these regulations. The officer is cribbed and cabined at every turn, and I say that one of the proofs of the indictment which is made against the Pensions Ministry is the fact that private instructions have been sent out which go far to negative the actual result of the Ministry's work. Taking these private instructions in their cumulative effect, they definitely prove that there has been a decided change of attitude towards the pensioner within the last year or two. The right hon. Gentleman always says that this was done, and that was done, and the other was done, but here are private instructions. He says there was a Committee of Inquiry, but I do not know who they were. I have not heard about their Report, but here are very definite statements. If he will give us a Committee of Inquiry, not a Departmental Inquiry, but a real Committee of Inquiry, that will not be a Report by Departmental officers, we will produce evidence that will satisfy him as to the private instructions which are given and which almost negative Regulations and certainly go far to negative Royal Warrants.
I want to say a word before sitting down on the question of mental cases. The whole subject of medical treatment is undergoing a radical change. I do not like the cutting down of expenditure on the Ministry hospitals. I have been told of a case in Sunderland where it was possible for men to go and get treatment in a hospital, when there was a Ministry hospital, and where it was possible for men sometimes to get out-treatment and allowances, but this is where we are to-day. A memorial has been sent in by working people in the Sunderland area protesting that they are compelled to work and to get out-door casual treatment for three days a week. They have to go backwards and forwards, and they are not men in a condition to do that. They find it very difficult to carry on. It would have been possible, under the old Regulations, for those men to go into hospital and get treatment, and at least they could have had allowances for treatment, but now they have to share the already poverty-stricken arrangements for hospitals with the civilian population, and the Pensions Ministry has reduced its expenditure accordingly.
I had a case yesterday which I think the House misunderstood. It was the case of a man in my own Division, who was demobilised and given 100 per cent, immediately he was demobilised. The man has been a pitiable case of tuberculosis, and generally physically undermined, and the terrible condition the man was in has been well known in that area. This man is finally sent to a sanatorium in Durham county, on the 7th of last month he is discharged, and on the 9th he is sent into the county mental hospital. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, representing the Ministry of Pensions, stated yesterday that this man is getting full pension, that his wife and children are getting 100 per cent, for tuberculosis, and that is quite true, but the Ministry say that they have no responsibility at all for the mental trouble. Consequently, the guardians have to be responsible for this man in the mental hospital. If the Ministry accept the responsibility for the man, there is what is, after all, a nominal charge of 19s. a week, and the wife would get the 21s. that was left out of the £2, but if he goes into the mental hospital and the guardians are responsible, it may just be that the great bulk of the £2 will be taken from the wife altogether. I know those guardians. Their error usually is on the side of generosity. They are not grumbling that they have to maintain the man, but they are grumbling that in the case of this man, who was so broken up and so physically undermined that the Ministry have been giving him 100 per cent., now, at the end of four years, the Ministry turn round and wash their hands of him, and say there is no connection between his present mental condition and his military service. Therefore, while he is a physical hero, he becomes a mental pauper.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman is going to break that Regulation down concerning mental patients. The right hon. Gentleman says that the late Minister of Pensions was responsible for the Regulation under the Royal Warrant. That is quite true, but he says that these diseases are not attributable to, or aggravated by, service, and that is the whole point. The right hon. Gentleman has never met the point that I put in this House about the mental ex-service men. He laid down the claim that if a man was a mental case before service in the Army, there was no responsibility for him now, but the very act of going into the Army might disturb a man mentally. A man could be a mental case before the War and be all right. He would have gone along under normal conditions and have remained normal, but put him under the abnormal conditions of a camp or barracks, and the man goes back to where he was. In any case, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the claim for these mental paupers, and let us get this very grievous thing, that certainly affects the conscience of the people of this country, wiped off the slate once and for all.
In supporting this Motion for a reduction of the Vote, I want to say, on behalf of the benches on this side of the Committee, that we do not think the right hon. Gentleman, along the present lines, is going to meet the claims that are made from various parts of the country. We think that there is a danger of continual miscarriages of justice, and we think that not only should justice be tempered with mercy, but that the Departments should have taken away from them the power of violating Warrants through Regulations and through secret instructions. We ask for an inquiry. We think it is time there was an inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman can make as eloquent speeches as he likes, and this House can pass the Vote with acclamation, but every Member knows that he has cases in which injustice is being done to the person concerned. If it is not heard inside this House, it will be heard outside, and why not get down, as we say, to the brass tacks? Let us have an investigation, a full inquiry, and, above all, I want the right hon. Gentleman to take charge of his own Department. The Pensions Ministry exists for the proper care of men and dependants who have rendered great service to this country and been injured greatly thereby. The men do not exist for the Pensions Ministry. The Pensions Ministry exists for the people and for their dependants.
:The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has ranged over such a wide series of topics that I hardly know where to begin. He asked for an inquiry, but I thought myself that that had been settled by this House some weeks ago. He also addressed us on the subject of secret Circulars. That has been denied time after time, but what I was struck with was that the hon. Member told us that if we would grant an inquiry he would produce the secret Circulars. I cannot conceive why he does not produce them now.
:I quoted from them.
:I gather that he meant Circulars beyond those. If those are all the hon. Member has got, I must confess I am a little surprised that he speaks so much about them. They appears to me to be nothing very much more than those routine, confidential Circulars which every big Office must have, and without which naturally a big concern like the Ministry of Pensions or any other Government Department cannot possibly function. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions on that wonderfully clear speech that he gave us, which covered such a large field and which gave us so much information. He touched, I thought, very satisfactorily on this question of the seven years' limit for widows' pensions. To my mind, he met all the complaints perfectly fully and frankly, and I believe that the more these concessions become known the more will ex-service men generally be satisfied.
:What are the concessions?
:The hon. Member heard the right hon. Gentleman as well as I did. I should like, on the question of this seven years' limit, to say that I was myself assisting the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) at the Ministry of Pensions when it was decided upon, and may I say that I was very glad indeed to be associated with him, although he was not of my party, in that great work? I had to go into this question to some extent, and to my mind there are grave objections to doing away with a limit of time. You admit, first of all, widows, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, of men who have never had a pension, and I cannot see why, if a man has never had a pension for seven years and never claimed one, his widow should have any claim on the State for a pension. An illness would entitle a widow to a claim which her late husband developed during service, which was not due to service, and there is no claim for a pension, either for a man or his widow, for an illness under those circumstances.
The widow, it is suggested, should be entitled to a full pension after seven, 12, or 20 years if the illness from which her husband died was only slightly aggravated by service. I cannot see there is any ground for a full pension for a widow under conditions like that. Then, again, you have the practical difficulty, which is the medical one. You have the difficulty of differentiating whether the death was due to natural causes, or how far it was due to those causes and how far to the service. You have to try and disentangle the conditions of civil life, and work, and the man's personal habits. If you wish to arrive at justice you have to try and disentangle all these factors, and it is quite impossible to do so. Therefore, you must have a limit, as large a one as possible; and I believe this seven years' limit, and the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman announced, to be as near to justice as we are likely to get. I am the more assured, because I have made inquiries on my own account, and it would appear correct that under the new regulations, as we have been told, no one who is entitled to a pension will fail to receive one.
There is another point in regard to this seven years' limit. It seems to me that it is not right that the case of the widow of a. man who was killed in action should be compared with that of the widow of a man who died some 10 or 15 years after he left the Army. On the one hand, I gather, it is suggested that both widows should receive pensions at the same rate. The widow of the man killed on service would only receive the same rate of pension as the widow of the man who had been living for years, and whose life, in this sense, had been of far greater advantage to his wife. I turn from that to another aspect. I am inclined to think that if you do away with the seven years' limit and endeavour to review the whole thing you may be getting yourselves and the ex-service men into considerable trouble. There was a proposal in this House that the onus of proof should be transferred from the individual to the Ministry. If the seven years' limit be abolished and the onus of proof put upon the Ministry that the death of the man was due to service, it seems to me that, as years go on, it will be quite impossible for the Ministry to prove the matter, and the further you get away from the date of the War, the less possible will it be to prove that the man's death was due to service. Every claim, after a certain period, is bound to be unhelpful from the ex-service man's point of view, and to raise up public feeling against the ex-service man, and against laxity of administration, and when questions are put in this House—as one has noticed occasionally—in favour of the ex-service men, they have raised up questions of an opposite character. I myself think once you allow the British Legion—I belong to it, but I do not agree with it on this point—to press this seven years' limit too far, they will get a certain amount of public opinion against them, and not only ex-service men, but their widows also will suffer harm from it.
It is not my intention to detain the House very long, but may I make my apology now for talking about pensions, and that apology is this: I have been in the House of Commons for five years, but I have never yet had the opportunity of talking about pensions, and that, I suppose, was because I was Parliamentary Secretary to my right hon. Friend an ex-Minister of Pensions (Mr. Macpherson), and one may not talk on a subject at such a time, but, knowing something about it, may be permitted to speak afterwards. There are one or two points which have been brought to my notice, and which I should like to press upon the attention of the present Minister of Pensions. There is one thing I should like to urge upon my right hon. Friend to put earnestly before the Ministry of Labour, and that is to endeavour to get the period of completed training under the Ministry of Labour reinstated. I can give the case of a man who was told that his application was too late, and that, therefore, he could not get his training put in. In my opinion, it is no use to bring a man to convalescence, give him a preliminary training, restore him to health, and then fail to go further forward with him and allow him to have a complete training. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), I know, took a great interest in this matter. He had to put a time limit, I think, upon the dates of the man's application, and that date was December, 1921, or three months after the man came out from treatment. It seems to me we might review the whole of this matter, because the man of whom I am speaking—and there are many cases like it—went back first of all to his old job. He tried civil life. It was not as if he passed direct to the Ministry of Labour from the hospital of the Ministry of Pensions. He went into civil life. He tried to work at his own job. He broke down, and then, when he wished to go to one of the centres of training, he found that he was barred by the new Regulations. Again, I press my right hon. Friend to exert all his influence with the Ministry of Labour and the Treasury to see if this alteration cannot be made.
There is another point, to which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) referred to a certain extent. As a matter of fact, he referred to a case in my own constituency of Hexham, to the inquiries in connection with old age pensions, and the circular to which reference has been made. These inquiries—you cannot get away from the fact—are irritating, to say the least. They are trying to those people about whom the inquiries are being made. They are really, I think, a source of expense too. I am not quite certain how often they are made, but perhaps three or six months from a family that has got anly pension. This Minister might stabilise this a little bit. He spoke about stabilisation. He might make this period a little longer. After fixing the pension, do not make these inquiries every three months. Stabilise them, at all events, for two or three years. I am quite certain the people would be far more satisfied even with a smaller sum if there were less inquiry. That is my second point.
There is another irritating thing about these pensions. If a parent is in possession of a flat-rate pension of 5s. and he— or she—falls upon hard times, he can do one or two things, either go hungry and do his best to subsist on the 5s., or go and get the relief pension and get more money for a time. Then circumstances improve and this pension ceases, and the parent thinks he is going to get back to his flat rate of 5s. Nothing of the kind. As a matter of fact, the pensioner does not very often understand that when he takes his second pension and when he signs the document he is signing away his right to the flat-rate pension afterwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "A trick!"] I think it is a little hard. There are some 300,000 of these people who are thus affected, and whose position I wish to press upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.
I am afraid now I have got to a more contentious topic, because on the other side of the House there have been a good many questions directed to the Minister in relation to the regional director of that part of the country I represent, the Northern region. General Kelly has been singled out. I think it is very unfortunate. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street to-day did not mention any names, but names have been mentioned in questions in relation to General Kelly's position. My experience of this regional director is that he is in every respect a very valuable servant of the Ministry, and, at all events, a very careful, courteous gentleman who looks into matters with the greatest possible care. I really do think it would be better if we would make criticisms without mentioning names and in some other way. If so, I would not complain. I would like, however, at all events, as the name as been mentioned, to pay my tribute to the energy with which this officer of the Northern region carries out his duties. I was interested in the reference of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street to this subject. He referred to these high officials in the Ministry of Pensions who were non-service men in many cases, and whose places would be filled by ex-service men who were ready and waiting to come up. I have noticed also the question of the hon. Member for Nottingham, who has asked whether these places could not be filled by ex-service officers. That sounds all very well on the Floor of the House. Actions, however, speak louder than words. I knew the ex-regional deputy-director in the North who was obliged to leave his position as he was not an ex-service man, and that same gentleman has now been taken on by the Labour party as their particular adviser. I say that actions speak louder than words.
:Hear, hear!
:I leave the matter there.
:Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what pay he is getting? Is he getting any pay?
:I really must finish the remarks I am going to make. Then there is the whole aspect of the medical treatment of these men, which is becoming more and more important.
:Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that the late second in command of the Northern region is a non-service man?
:I am informed that he left the Northern region on the ground that he was a non-service man to make room for an ex-service man.
:Then you are wrong altogether, for this man has not only served for this country, but for other countries.
:If I am wrong, then I am sorry I mentioned it, and I withdraw it, because I certainly do not wish to give any wrong impression.
:Do not withdraw it, because he did not serve at all.
:The Minister for Pensions and other hon. Members confirm my statement, and therefore there is nothing to withdraw. I wish to ask one or two questions. I would like to know how we are getting on about our treatment of tuberculosis? Are we taking better steps than we did in the past to arrange for the early detection of this grave disease? I would also like to know how our separate hospitals for mental cases are working in practice. I have been told that many of the parents and relatives of these men feel it very hard when they are transferred to some other part of the country where they cannot conveniently visit them. May we be informed as to how these arrangements are working, and whether they are satisfactory? Another difficulty is raised by the fall in wages. The treatment of these men lends itself to very grave abuses, because when your treatment allowances are higher than the wages these men received, there may be a tendency to go on treatment allowance when they really have no right to do so. Now that wages are down to 25s. per week in some districts, and the treatment allowance is £2 and over, there may be a tendency for men to go on treatment allowance when they should not do so. I would like to know if the Ministry of Pensions take any steps to prevent this happening?
:Yes, they do not get anything at all now.
:In the matter of treatment is it left to the pensioner to apply for treatment, or do the doctors connected with the Ministry of Pensions, if they find it necessary, offer treatment on their own initiative? It seems to me that this matter is rather important. Hon. Members opposite have put forward a Motion for a reduction of this Vote by £100, and no doubt they will support it. For my part, having watched carefully the policy of the Minister of Pensions, and the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has carried out his duties, I shall have no hesitation in going into the Lobby in support of the Government. The Minister of Pensions has carried out his trust with a due regard to the national interest, and with a great amount of sympathy for the pensioners.
7.0 P.M.
:I should like to commence by a reference to an earlier speech, and I wish to state with what pleasure I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Pielou). I would like to say that I never heard a speech delivered by a sergeant-major of the British Army which did so much honour to his rank. As a man who was brought up in the British Army myself, the hon. and gallant Member will understand what pleasure his speech gave me. I will now proceed to make one general observation, and I wish to raise one point in particular. It is the point with which the hon. Member for Hexham (Major Brown) began his speech. The point I wish to raise is the question of the seven years' limit. As regards the general observation:—The tremendous strain upon our resources due to the War made it necessary that we should economise, and economise ruthlessly. That has been done, and it is still going on. We have made substantial reductions in taxation and also a substantial start with Debt reduction, and the total expenditure for 1918–19 of £3,000,000,000 has come down to an estimated expenditure for 1923–24 to £816,500,000. What my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Macpherson) and those of us who were associated with him always kept before us was that throughout the whole process of reduction we laid it down—and gratitude compelled us to do it—that while we ought to do all we could to economise in administrative expenditure, we should not do anything to reduce the provision made for these fighting men, and we carried out that policy throughout.
These men and their dependants must have all to which they are entitled. They must be the first charge on our resources, and a continuing charge as far as our sympathy goes. I know the Minister of Pensions is under considerable pressure in regard to economy, and taxation cannot stay where it is, because it is holding down the progress of industries. We do, however, look upon the Minister of Pensions as the trustee and guardian of the men who have suffered in the War, and of the women and children who are now sorrowing. The right hon. Gentleman has got to resist, if it be put to him, any economy in the provision for these men which has already been made and, if he requires any assistance to resist any attempt to squeeze down this expenditure I am sure he will get it from all parts of the House of Commons, irrespective of party.
The particular point which I want to raise is the seven years' limit for widows' and orphans' pensions. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Hexham to say that the Minister of Pensions dealt with that question fully and adequately, but as a matter of fact he did nothing of the kind. The right hon Gentleman said that the subject would be dealt with in detail later on, and I think he would be the last to suggest that he had dealt with it adequately in his statement. We have simply been talking around this subject, and I would like to come down to brass tacks about this seven years' limit affecting the widows and orphans of the men who died as the result of disease due to or aggravated by War service. It is a most confused business, and it is difficult for me or anybody else—to say nothing of the poor people—to know exactly what it does mean, and what the Minister can or cannot do in this matter.
Perhaps the Minister will assist me in my endeavour to state in precise detail what this is all about. If I am wrong, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will correct me. The issue of these pensions to widows and orphans is governed by Articles 11 and 17 of the Royal Warrant. I will take Article 17 first, as amended. Under this Article the Minister may now make an award to widows and orphans in the case of a man dying from disease due to or aggravated by war service if the husband be in receipt at the time of his death of a pension assessed upon a disability of 50 per cent. If it be less than that, then there is no award under Article 17. The man must be at the time of his death in receipt of a pension assessed at 50 per cent. The widow may in this case, at the Minister's discretion, get a pension of half her husband's disability allowance, and a full allowance for the children, and that is a recent amendment. There is no time limit to that. If the man was in receipt of 50 per cent, or more of his pension, and his death was due to or aggravated by war service, it does not matter, and the widow can get a pension to the extent of half of the man's disability pension. That is entirely in the Minister's discretion, and I would call the attention of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) to this point.
The woman has no appeal in this case. If the Minister says, "Well, the husband has a 50 per cent, disability pension, it is quite true, but his death has no reference to his war service, and consequently there is no pension due to the widow," the Minister's word is final, and there is no appeal. I think that is quite wrong, and I would like to call the attention of the Member for Hexham to this fact. I say that there ought to be an appeal to an independent tribunal for every widow and every case of this kind, and it should be settled by some independent authority. That is what is provided by Article 17. There is no appeal, and it is entirely in the Minister's hands. If he likes to say, "No, there is nothing doing, "then there is nothing more to be said about it.
Now I come to Article 11, which is the statutory Article. The widow or orphans of a man who dies as a result of wounds or injuries received in the performance of military service during the War within seven years of his receiving such injuries or wounds, or who dies of disease certified as commencing while on active service during the War, or aggravated by such active service within seven years of his removal on account of such disease, may be granted a pension at full rates. That is quite different from Article 17. Those are half rat s for the widow and full rates for the children. Under Article 17, the widow is entitled to half the man's disability pension and the children to full rates.
:The right hon. Gentleman has entirely failed to understand the whole point. The point is that half of the full pension of a man is a full pension for the widow.
:Let us be clear about this. A man with a 50 per cent, disability gets 20s. a week pension. Half that is 10s. which is the pension for the wife. Is 10s. a week the wife's full pension?
:The right hon. Gentleman was arguing on a 100 per cent. case. In a 100 per cent, case, where a man was drawing £2 a week, if he died entirely owing to the War, the widow would get half his pension, and half his rate is the widow's full pension.
:We must get this point clearly. Under Article 17, in which there is no statutory right, the widow, if the Minister agrees that the man died of war service, can get a pension of half the man's disability pension. The Minister does not deny that. The children get the full allowance. But take a man assessed at 50 per cent.—that is 20s. pension. In that case, the woman would get 10s. a week, which is not a widow's full pension. Only in the case of a 100 per cent, disability would she get the full amount under Article 17. I must insist upon the point. The Minister does not deny that there is no appeal. What he calls, if I may say so with respect, the full pension is only given if the man has been getting 100 per cent, disability pension. If a man dies after seven years from injuries arising from or aggravated by war service, the Minister may give the full pension, and if he says "No, "then the widow has a. right of appeal under Article 11.
The Minister himself, in the Press communique, part of which he rehearsed in his speech, carries it a little further. He says if a man has received a disability but returns to full duty and is discharged, the date on which the man is invalided or demobilised will be taken in that case as the beginning of the seven years.. That is a concession, as it carries the seven years a little further on. So far, so good, and we are greatly obliged to-him for that. The communique goes on. to say:
"the Minister is advised that only in-exceptional cases can death occurring more than seven years from discharge be regarded as directly and obviously connected with-active service. But it is receognised that such cases will occur, and accordingly it is conceded that, notwithstanding the time limit, a claim will be considered for the maximum rate of widow's pension where the death is clearly shown to be due to the nature, or condition of the disability, as resulting wholly and directly from war service. Subject to these important concessions, in practice, the seven years' time limit in Article 11, which has been embodied in the warrants approved by Parliament, is maintained. "
The communique goes on to say:
Further, in exceptional cases, where death occurs more than seven years afterwards, the Minister may give a full pension both to the widow and children, and there again there is no appeal. That is in the Minister's keeping. Under Article 11, if death occurs within seven years and the Minister will not admit the claim, the widow has an appeal. A number of cases have already arisen causing considerable conflict as to the meaning of these various regulations. The cases are very few today, because the number of men concerned were only the comparatively small number of the original Expeditionary Force and the immediate additions to that Force, but, just as the number of men under arms grew in those days gone by, so a greater number of these cases will arise where hardship will undoubtedly be inflicted by this seven years rule. Sup- posing a man has been three weeks or three months under arms and has seen no active service at all, a man who ought never to have been enlisted, and the fact that he was in khaki has not affected his life at all—supposing that man dies 10 or 15 or 20 years hence and dies from reasons that have nothing to do with military service, I say his widow has no claim upon the Pensions Minister. She is in the same position as the widow of any other civilian, because in no way did his enlistment affect his life. But in the case of a man who it is agreed dies because of his war service, you cannot turn to that widow with her little children around her, and say "That was more than seven years ago, we can do little for you." Now I admit that the Minister of Pensions is an ex-service man himself and that he is most kindly and sympathetic and painstaking. He is solicitude itself with every case I have brought to his notice, and I am sure my experience is the same as that of other Members is this respect, but he really has not got this matter right, and I ask him not to let any Departmental sense of dignity prevent him from looking at this fairly and squarely. He-wants to do the right thing; he does not want the soldier or his widow to be done down. I make a suggestion to him which I hope he will consider. I suggest he should add to the Article 11 some words like this:
"Further, the widow of a soldier who dies as the result of wounds, injuries, or disease, referred to in (B), (C) and (D) above, after seven years, provided the disability can be certified as due to his service, or in cases where the disability can be certified to be aggravated by such service, provided the aggravation materially contributed to the cause of death, may be granted pension at the following rates "—
That is to say, the full rates of the pension warrant. That is the case that should be met. I put that to the Minister in no hostile spirit. I do not ask him to accept that here and now, but I suggest he should consider it. He has spoken earlier in the Debate of the great assistance he has had from the Members of all parties in this House. I suggest that he should invite representative Members of all parties to meet him and to discuss the actual working in practice of Articles 11 and 17, and see whether some sort of proviso such as I have suggested could not be included. I press that upon him with all the earnestness I can command, because unwittingly, and increasingly as time goes on, he is perpetuating a grave hardship which is rather shabby to these poor women and their little children.
:I listened very attentively to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Pensions so ably put before the Committee, and I can assure him that the ex-service men realise that he is a friend of theirs as far as it is possible for a Minister to be. There is only one point on which I wish to speak. It is one, on which I feel very strongly. It is, of course, the seven years' limit which has been referred to so often in this Debate. It is said that it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back. I hope that this Debate will prove the last straw to break down resistance on the part of the Ministry in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) has put forward very eloquently what we are fighting for. He seems to me to have made out an essentially good case. The Minister has, to my mind, failed in the one respect in which we want to be met, and that is in regard to the right of appeal. The right hon. Gentleman assured us that he took into consideration all the facts in connection with these cases. He can do anything he likes in the matter of granting a pension to the widow whose husband has died after the legal period of seven years. But although his may be the best of administrations, and although the right hon. Gentleman may be the most kind-hearted of Ministers, it must be remembered that the time may come when the Ministry of Pensions may not be so sympathetic and may not take the same view of these cases as he does. It is for that time we wish to legislate.
I have two cases here which I should like to quote as showing that pensions are not granted where to my mind they ought to be. One case is that of a man who was drawing a 70 per cent, pension. He died exactly one month after the seven years' limit from exactly the disease for which he was drawing his pension, but' the widow's application was turned down. Had she not nursed her husband so assiduously and so carefully it is very possible he might have died within the seven years' period, and, in that case, there would have been no question of her being eligible for a pension. She claims that she ought to have a chance of putting her case before a tribunal, and I think that will be the opinion of all interested in this question. The other case is a somewhat different one. It is the case of a man who was wounded in 1914, who returned to the service, and served until the end of 1917, when he was again wounded. He was in receipt of a 100 per cent, pension, and he died on the 31st January this year from the disease for which he was drawing the pension. His widow's application was likewise turned down. It is true it is nearly nine years since this man was first discharged from duty, but it is only five and a quarter years since he was last discharged from duty, and I cannot understand, in view of what the Minister has said, why that case has not been considered as from the date of the last discharge. Both these cases have been dealt with and turned down within the last four weeks. I am afraid it will be my duty to vote for a reduction of this Vote, much as I dislike to vote against the Government, realising as I do what a big calamity it would be if the Government were to be thrown out. But I cannot see any other course for me to take unless we get some concession from the Minister in the way of an undertaking to set up the Committee suggested by the right hon. Member for Camberwell, or to meet the case in some other way. If everyone in this House honoured his pledge, as I intend to do, over 400 Members of this House who at the last Election took the same line would be found voting against the Government.. I put it to the Minister that the time has come when he should deal with this question.
There are two or three smaller points to which I would like to call attention. In the first place, in regard to the appeal tribunal, I would like to say I take a very diverse view from that expressed by my hon. Friend on my left (Mr. Pielou). It is our duty, I think, to help these men to put forward their claims, and seeing that only some 26 per cent, of the appeals before the tribunal were successful until help was afforded by advisers provided by the British Legion when no fewer than 65 per cent, were successful out of 10,000 cases which were undertaken, I submit that that goes to prove that the majority of the men who appear before the tribunal, either owing to lack of education or to nervousness, are not able to do themselves justice. I do not suggest that the Minister should subsidise the Legion in any way, but I do think that those who can bring their own legal advisers to put their case before the tribunal should be allowed travelling and subsistence allowances. I believe that course was recommended by an Interdepartmental Committee in 1921.
During the Debate on the Address, I spoke at some length and as strongly as I could on the question of tuberculosis. Since then deputations have waited upon both the Ministers of Pensions and of Health, and we have been assured that the question will be again considered. Indeed, the Minister of Health told us he would go into the question himself, and as that was only three weeks ago and as sufficient time has not lapsed for us to get an answer, I do not propose now to press the question, although I may say we have very great hope as the result of the deputation. The other point on which I wish to speak is with regard to the training of men. It is considered that the period now allowed of 12 months is too short. If the men were able to get an appointment immediately their training was finished, probably the time would not be too short. But as it is they now only get a smattering of knowledge, they are turned out on an open market, many months elapse before they get a job, and by that time they have forgotten all they ever learned. They now move round a circle, they go through the training, they are out of employment for months, they go back to the sanatorium, and then they go through another period of training. I suggest it would be an advantage to the men and economic to the country if the period of training could be extended.
May I again refer to the question of the widows' pensions? At the present moment widows who are granted pensions are only granted them as from the date of their application. It seems to me the pension ought to be granted as from the date of the husband's death. It may occur that the widow is unavoidably delayed in putting forward her claim, and I think she ought not to be penalised in such a case. This point surely only needs to be mentioned to be put right. I do not think we need have any fear whatsoever of antagonising public opinion by pressing forward these claims. It is only by putting them forward that we can hope to get what is wanted. We have been told that the state of the pensioner to-day is very different from that of the pre-War pensioner. I believe it is, but I do not think much credit should be claimed for that, because the state of the pensioners after the South African War was a blot on the escutcheon of this country which can never be wiped out.
:The Minister of Pensions, in the course of his speech, made a very important announcement with regard to the final reviews of existing pensions. I think we all welcomed his announcement that those reviews will be completed before the end of the financial year, and that, as I understand it, the pensions will not be reviewed to the detriment of the pensioners merely because of a change of medical opinion. We regard that as a piece of very good fortune for the men whose cases have still to be reviewed. But what of the men whose cases have been already reviewed to their disadvantage merely because of a change of medical opinion? We have had no time, of course, to get together facts and arguments with regard to those cases, but I do suggest that, in view of the manner in which it is proposed to review cases during the coming year, the cases of the men which have already been reviewed should have consideration where they have been turned down in the past merely because one medical board has disagreed with another. I know I am suggesting to the Minister the undertaking of a colossal task, but it is one which the Department must, in justice to these pensioners, take in hand. I should like to say a word in support of the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and also by the hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen), with regard to the necessity for assisting men to bring their appeals before the appeal tribunal. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fair-field gave the figures. I have figures also, and my figures agree with his. They show that, taking the average of appeal cases all over the country, the average of successful appeals is something like 27 per cent., whereas in those cases in which the appellants have been repre- sented by officers of the British Legion, the successful appeals have reached a percentage of 67. I might also mention that in the case of St. Dunstan's, the percentage has risen to 75, but I do not lay much stress upon that, because that, of course, is a very special class of case. It is a tribute to the efficiency of St. Dunstan's, but I do not think it affects the general argument. I do think, however, that the case of the British Legion, where 10,000 cases have been dealt with, does affect the general argument in a very important sense, and I agree with the suggestion that at least the Ministry should defray the subsistence and travelling expenses of soldiers' friends who come to assist them before the appeal tribunal.
I was a little disappointed at the professional view taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, who rather deprecated the appearance of members of his profession before the Appeal Tribunal. One characteristic of members of his profession is what may be described as excessive modesty, but I do think it might be well if some arrangement were come to so that members of the legal profession were enabled and invited to represent pensioners appealing before the Appeal Tribunal. I do not know whether it is the case in England, but in Scotland there is a. very good precedent for the making of such an arrangement by the Department. There is an arrangement in Scotland, in the ordinary civil courts, under which any party to an action who is unable to secure legal advice owing to poverty is assisted out of the public funds and is provided with a representative. I suggest that something like that might be arranged with regard to the Appeal Tribunals.
With regard to what are known technically as bad entitlement cases, I should like to ask the Minister whether it is a fact that, until recently, cases which fell just beyond the borderline, and did not come within the Regulations and the Royal Warrants, were dealt with by the Special Grants Committee, which was empowered to make grants in such cases up to the full limit of the pension which might have been granted to the soldier or dependant had the claim been proved. There are, as we know, many borderline cases, and I should like to know whether that was the practice, whether that practice has recently been stopped, and if it is the fact that the beneficient activities of the Special Grants Committee have been limited and circumscribed—not I am sure, by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by the Treasury. I think that if that is the case we ought to be told about it, because I am certain that it would be possible to persuade the House of Commons to reinstate the Special Grants Committee, and encourage it to make grants in these extremely hard cases.
So much for the Entitlement Appeal Tribunal. In the case of the Assessment Appeal Tribunal, there is one very small improvement which might be suggested. In cases where the Assessment Tribunal sets aside a final award that has been made by a medical board, I understand that the appellant is sent back to the medical board to have his temporary assessment fixed by the board. I think a great cause of complaint and grievance would be removed if the Appeal Tribunal were itself empowered, having set aside the final award, to fix the temporary assessment, because there is no question that the general body of men have more faith in the Appeal Tribunal than in the medical board, and would be very much better satisfied if their case were entirely dealt with by the Appeal Tribunal, and if they were not sent back to the board of first instance to have their assessment fixed. I think they have a perfectly natural, although perhaps erroneous, impression that a medical board is not particularly fond of the pensioner who appeals against its decision and has its decision upset. That is a perfectly natural feeling.
That is all that I have to say with regard to the appeal tribunals. The question of the pecuniary need pension and the pre-War dependant's pension has been spoken of this afternoon, and if anything that I could say would induce the Minister to remedy what is a very serious and grave injustice I should be very glad to say it. I think, however, that the point has been made, and I trust that the Minister will take it into very serious consideration. We constantly have cases, or, at any rate, I have, in which widows or mothers of soldiers write to say that they have fallen on evil days, owing to ill-health or other causes, that they know they can get a pecuniary need pension, but that they have applied for it and have been told that, according to the Regulations, if they accept this larger pension, and if in course of time their circumstances improve, then the larger pension will be taken away from them, and the flat rate pension will be no longer available. I think that what is, perhaps, at the back of the mind of the Ministry of Pensions—and I say it with very great respect considering the bench from which I am speaking, is that the granting of the flat rate pension was a mistake in the first place, and it has, of course, led to all sorts of instances of, at any rate, seeming injustice up and down the country. Parents who, indeed, did lose their sons, but who are in comparatively comfortable circumstances, are drawing this pension, whereas those who are in much less favourable circumstances, having applied for the pecuniary need pension, having got it, and having had it taken away from them, are deprived even of the flat rate pension.
There is one other point that I should like to put before the Minister. It relates to the very troublesome matter of aggravation. Is it not possible for the Ministry of Pensions to devise another form of words in which to announce the decisions when, in cases of aggravation, the pension is declared to be at an end. The formula is that the man is now deprived of his pension because, although his disability was aggravated by war service, the aggravation has now passed away. I think that that is the official formula, but it is not one to be understood by ordinary people. I have had a case only this morning in which the dependants have been told that the aggravation has passed away, and the soldier is in a lunatic asylum. I understand that what is meant is that the medical advisers of the Ministry say that the disability was certainly aggravated by war service, but that in any case, whether the man had gone into the Army or not, he would, after the time that has elapsed from the date of his discharge until now, in any case be in the position in which he now in fact is, and that the pension he has received has compensated him for the acceleration of his condition. I believe, however, that really the phrase arouses a great deal of misunderstanding. Of course, as far as I am concerned, I should like to see all these aggravation cases made into permanent pensions, but,, if that cannot be done, at least let us try to devise a form of words which more accurately reflects what is in the mind of the Ministry than is the case at present.
I should like to say one other word. When I spoke last on this question here I ventured to suggest to the Minister of Pensions that he might consult his regional directors with regard to improvements that might be made in the Royal Warrant and Regulations, and in the administration generally, because it is at all events my experience that his regional directors are efficient men who are extremely anxious to do their very best to administer pensions satisfactorily. I think that on that occasion the Minister said that it was his habit to consult these regional directors regularly. I think that all Members of the House are gratified because of the action which the Minister has recently taken in affording Members an opportunity of meeting these regional directors. It was my misfortune to be engaged in a Committee of the House on the occasion when the Regional Director for Scotland, Colonel Warden, was present, and I am afraid I omitted to reply to the Minister's invitation. I now apologise to him for that seeming discourtesy, and express my regret that I was unable to be present. I am certain that it is the general desire in all quarters of the Committee to do everything that is possible to improve the machinery of the Ministry of Pensions, because I am certain that we all feel that we have a great deal more to do than ought to be necessary. I do not think that one grudges the work that is entailed by attending to the requests of pensioners, but I am sure we should all feel much more satisfied if it were possible for us, in nine out of ten of the cases that come-before us, to say that the machinery is perfect, the Warrants are perfect, and the administration is perfect, and that we are satisfied that the case will be properly dealt with. It is to that state that we desire to bring all the Regulations, and I hope it is with the object of bringing about that state of matters that this discussion will be conducted.
:I do not propose, in the short speech that I shall make, to deal with any of the controversial points which have been brought before the Committee by the various speakers who have preceded me. I intend, on the other hand, to deal with what I think is a very little known side of our activities, and, I am glad to say, a comparatively non-contentious one, namely, the side of our activities dealing with medical treatment. I think the Committee will like, after I have dealt very shortly with this subject from the point of view of the Estimates to give a short account of our medical arrangements and of the improvements which we are constantly making, and which, particularly, have been made during the last year. The total estimated cost of the medical service for the year 1923–24 is £5,083,000. This includes two sections into which I think it is convenient to divide these services, namely, medical treatment and boarding and administration. Of the total cost of £5,083,000 for medical services, a sum of £3,797,000 represents the estimated cost of medical treatment, and the balance of £1,286,000 represents the cost of the medical side of boarding and administration. The second of these sections, namely, boarding and administration, is so intimately bound up with the question of awarding pensions that I do not propose to deal with that at all, but the cost of medical treatment by the Ministry in the year mentioned was estimated in the Estimates now before the House at, as I have said, £3,797,000. I should like just to explain what I mean by medical treatment. This Estimate covers the payments made to civil hospitals where we have beds for our patients, the cost of our own Ministry hospitals, the supply of artificial limbs and other appliances, and traveling expenses of officers and men in connection with going for treatment to hospitals, going to the limb-fitting centres, and so on. The Estimates for 1923–24—
:Is there not an additional item of £360,000 for travelling expenses under Item O.5—" Travelling and incidental expenses of disabled officers, nurses and men attending medical boards, etc., £360,000"? That is an additional sum.
:On page 20 of the Estimates the various heads are grouped together in the total sum I have given of £5,083,000. The portions with which I am now dealing are set out on pages 40 and 41 under the sub-heads O.5(2), O.6, O.7 and O.8 and amount as I have said to £3,797,000. They include travelling and incidental expenses of disabled officers, nurses and men undergoing treatment, etc. The Estimate for 1923 represents a reduction on the Estimate for the preceding year of £2,592,000, but this in only a paper reduction, because the Estimates for the preceding year were much higher than they need have been. On the other hand, this year we think we have been able to estimate much more closely to what we shall eventually spend, and the true reduction this year is really £1,503,000, so hon. Members opposite who think we are reducing too rapidly, and at the expense of the pensioners, will kindly note the fact that the real reduction on these services is only about half of the apparent reduction. The expenditure of the Ministry on medical treatment reached its maximum two years ago, in exactly the same way as the general expenses of the Ministry reached their maximum in that year. In 1921–22 the Ministry had its maximum hospital accommodation of 14,000 beeds approximately, and its maximum number of patients receiving one form of treatment or another. In 1920–21 the cost of treatment amounted to £6,822,000, in 1921–22 £6,975,000—that is the top year—in 1922–23 the sum was £5,300,000, and this year the estimated cost will be £3,979,000. The decline is due to somewhat similar causes which have brought the pensions cost generally down—deaths of pensioners, recovery under medical treatment, etc.
The question was asked whether the Ministry waited for pensioners to demand treatment and hospital attention or whether they themselves took the initiative in the matter. I can answer that most emphatically, for from the earliest times I believe the Ministry has always taken the initiative in the matter, and the instruction to all doctors who come in contact with pensioners is that if they see any necessity for treatment or for sending to hospital they are to do so at once and not wait for an applica- tion on the part of the man for such treatment or hospital attendance. The decline in the cases of hospital treatment is due to a number of causes, amongst others a steady reduction in the number of men needing treatment. While, of course, there are necessarily a number of cases which will or may be treated from time to time for the rest of their lives, for instance tubercular cases and a certain proportion of neurasthenics and paralytics, the majority of men pensioned for disabilities are yielding to treatment and are getting better. It would be a very serious reflection on our medical treatment and the enormous sum which we spend every year and have spent since the Ministry started its operations—the amount, I believe, is over £60,000,000— if the number of pensioners recovering from their disabilities did not increase every year. Out of every 10 pensionable cases, four are cases of wounds or injury of one kind and another, and in the case of wounds they generally recover, or at least they recover to the extent that the disability becomes stationary and treatment would no longer make any change. Similarly in the case of many diseases, the men are discharged from treatment either entirely cured or sufficiently recovered to be as well as the average member of the civilian population.
I should like to give some figures with regard to the numbers of people we have under treatment and the same numbers with regard to the three preceding years. On 30th June, 1920, there were 146,000 men under treatment as in or out patients, in 1921, l55,000 men—in 1922 we had 110,000 men and on 31st March of this year we had 80,000 men. As a consequence of the reduction in the demand for treatment —and this is another reason for the cost going down—the hospital accommodation of the Ministry has been reduced. The number of hospital beds in 1921–22 was 14,000, in the next year it was 11,500 and this year it is 8,000, but the Committee must not think we are hurrying this operation of reducing the number of beds. Far from that we always keep in hand a very considerable number, 10 per cent, to 15 per cent of the number of beds actually needed over and above the actual number which are occupied, and this year we have something like 1,000 beds more than we are occupying at the moment, so if for any reason or other which it is not possi- ble to foresee there may be a sudden increase in the number of pensioners requiring hospital accommodation, the beds are ready for them at any moment. Another reason for the fall in the cost of the treatment, of course, is the fall in the cost of living, which has had its effect on hospitals just as it has in ordinary life. The average cost per patient per day in 1921–22 was 9s. 7d., in 1922–23, 8s. 5d., and to-day it is estimated at 8s., which amounts to a very considerable sum when the large number of patients concerned is taken into account.
That is all I propose to say in regard to the treatment division of our work, but I should like to give a bird's eye view of our medical system generally. We look upon it—hon. Members who do not appear to be content with the administration of our Department will, perhaps, not agree with us—as one of the most complete medical systems in the world.
:It is for certain purposes.
8.0 P.M.
:We think that for the purpose of curing people who are disabled it is the biggest and most complete medical system in the world, and I hope, when I have told the Committee all about it, more hon. Members may be inclined to agree. I know the Pensions Ministry is commonly looked upon as purely a machine for dispensing compensation in cash for disabilities received during the War, but it is not any exaggeration to say it is the real Ministry of Reconstruction. In fact, I think that was an expression used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) when he was Minister of Pensions. I think it is constructive work — the work of rehabilitation, mental and physical, of disabled officers and men, for whom the Ministry secures the highest medical opinion and advice from the ablest practitioners in the country. The magnitude of the work will be apparent when I remind the Committee that on this service the sum of £66,000,000 has been expended since the Ministry was started. Three years ago it had to rely on a very much less perfect system than it has now— on the general civil hospitals—while the disabled man with a pension had to rely for advice in the first instance on the ordinary local practitioner. Within the past three years the system has been very largely trans- formed and added to, and to-day the Ministry carries out its medical treatment by means of Ministry hospitals and clinics with the advice and assistance of upwards of 3,000 doctors, and by a system of re-educational training.
May I say a word or two with regard to clinics. Within the last 18 months a network of local clinics has been set up all over the country. They number 109 and they are equipped in the most modern manner to deal with practically every ailment which the War has brought upon the men. A clinic consists of consulting rooms with medical equipment and is attended by selected medical practitioners in the district and by suitable specialists who are often brought from a great distance for the purpose of examining disabled men who are sent to it either by medical boards or by their private doctors. We also have 37 Ministry hospitals, each of which is devoted to particular types of disability. For example, there are 17 hospitals for the treatment of neurasthenia, the are 17 for surgical treatment, and in addition there are beds reserved or occupied in 150 civil hospitals for Ministry cases. I have here a list of our 37 Ministry hospitals. I am sure a great many hon. Members are familiar with at least one of these. They are to be found all over the country. The largest of them, which I think is the Ministry hospital at Shepherd's Bush, has 731 patients. They range in size from that down through 500, which we find at Bellahouston and Edinburgh, 512 in Liverpool, 513 in Leeds and so on down to 20, which is the smallest Ministry hospital entirely under our own control. We have also hospitals for special diseases. We have first of all neurasthenic hospitals or hospitals at which neurasthenia is the principal ailment treated, we have special orthopaedic hospitals, we have neurological hospitals, general, medical and surgical hospitals, hospitals which are specially given up to dysentery cases, hospitals at which aural and cardiac treatment is given, and hospitals at which artificial eyes and artificial limbs are fitted. Also we have the convalescent centres, where combined training with medical treatment is given— of this we have a very good example at Epsom. As well us that we have a large staff—I have given the number, 2,814—of whole-time and part-time medical officers. There are special whole-time medical officers, for tuberculosis and dental treatment, etc., and a host of part-time specialists for consultation as may be necessary. I should like here to say a word with reference to the appointment of doctors for the purpose of boarding pensioners. It has been suggested on several occasions that the doctors who act on the boards before which the men appear are, in some way or other, imbued with the spirit which some hon. Members of this Committee seem to think we at the Ministry of Pensions possess, of trying to whittle down pensions as much as possible.
:It is that these doctors do not understand the cases, not the conditions in which the men are employed.
:The fact of the matter is that these doctors who form the boards before which the men come are local doctors. Perhaps they are not the actual doctors who have been attending these men, but they have been attending people in the district all their lives. The system by which these doctors are chosen for the boards is that a panel is kept of the local doctors. It is compiled originally by the local deputy commissioner of medical service, who submits the names to the Region for approval, final approval for their employment being obtained from the Ministry.
:Does that apply to the Welsh region at Cardiff?
:Is the panel to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers simply a panel for the area in which the medical boards are held, or for the whole of the county?
:As I understand it, the procedure is exactly the same in Wales as elsewhere.
:It is not exactly as the hon. and gallant Gentleman described it just now. That is the reason why I put the question.
:May I describe what I understand is the principle of selection of these gentlemen? The local medical men in a district apply to be put on the Pensions panel of medical men. They are chosen by the Deputy-Commissioner of Medical Services in the area. Their names are then submitted to the Region, and finally approval is given by the Ministry of Pensions. The part-time medical men employed consist of ordinary members and specialists. The ordinary members are divided into chairmen and members, the chairmen being chosen for their special knowledge and experience of the work. Naturally efficiency is what we aim at first of all, but a preference is given according to the following categories, (1) whether a doctor has served overseas, (2) has served in the Army at home, (3) has been prevented from serving by ill-health, and (4) has not served at all. If we have enough doctors who fall within the first category to perform the duties, then none but bona fide ex-service men who have served overseas will come on the panel.
:Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take the case of Lancashire. There the whole of the medical, boards are practically held at Liverpool or Manchester. Are the doctors from the provincial parts of the county liable to be enrolled for this work?
:I was not aware that the whole of the boarding in Lancashire was done in those two towns.
:Principally, I said.
:I did not know even that was so. I thought there were a considerable number of boards in a county so large as Lancashire. All I can say is that the principle followed is that the doctors are selected from those practicing in the neighbourhood.
:That is the very reason I put the question. All the boards for Glamorgan sit at Cardiff. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that not a single doctor in the industrial area appears on the board and knows the conditions under which the men have to work?
:I can hardly think that the hon. and gallant Member is correct when he says that at Cardiff, for instance, no doctor in Cardiff is on the local panel.
:I did not say that. A very large number of men were taken for the War, from the industrial districts. They served, and have now come back. They have got back into their employment, to some extent, and are in light employment in other cases in and about the collieries. All the medical boards are formed, and do their work at Cardiff. What I say is that there is not a single medical man on those boards who knows anything at all about colliery work from A to Z.
:Nor about steel or tin plates, either.
:I am surprised at the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement. What I have stated is the general principle on which the panels are called together. With reference to the criticisms which have been made from the other side, as to the alleged bias of the doctors on these boards against the pensioners, I would say that they are the ordinary local doctors who do not give up the whole of their time to this pension work. The system by which we employ and pay these men is by session. There are morning and afternoon sessions of 2½ hours' work each. There are two sessions on five days a week, and one on Saturday, making 11 sessions in the week. I have made inquiries particularly on this point, and I am informed that there are very few doctors who sit on the boards more often than three, or possibly four, times a week, and that for the rest of the time they are pursuing their ordinary general practice. Apart from the high standard of professional conduct of the doctors in this country, when you find that these men, for more than half the week, are doing their ordinary practice amongst their ordinary patients, it is quite ridiculous to suppose that when they come into a room to judge the medical condition of pensioners they should adopt a biased attitude, which, I am sorry to say, it is sometimes suggested they do adopt. If it be that sometimes they come from districts where they do not understand the particular ailments of the men, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) suggests, I must look into that, because I am convinced that the principle which I have put forward is the right one upon which to choose our Doctors: I will look into it, and see if there is anything wrong with the selection; and if the doctors are not being properly appointed to these panels, we will have that put right.
:Are we to take it as certain that all the doctors in, say, the Glasgow area, who attend these medical boards, are engaged also in private practice in the city or in the immediate neighbourhood? Is that the statement?
:Yes, that is the statement. I understand there are practically none—I will not say not one, but practically none—of the doctors who sit on these boards who do not spend at least half of their time attending to their ordinary private practice.
:The industrial areas around Cardiff have to send the men to the boards at Cardiff. At Cardiff, the boards know nothing at all about the colliery work and about work in the steel industries.
:Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he does make that inquiry, keep in mind the fact that I want him to understand we have no bias against the doctors.
:No, none.
:Our complaint is that the doctors do not understand the conditions of employment of the men with whom they have to deal. Our argument is that in a colliery district the doctors who have practices there should be taken, and that they should form at least one out of the three members of the medical board.
:That is a very reasonable request, and I certainly will have it put forward.
I am still dealing with the method by which we seek to cure disabled pensioners, and the last, though not the least, is by means of re-education in convalescent centres, and hospital workshops. I do not know if any hon. Mem- bers have ever visited one of our convalescent centres, like that of Epsom.
:I have been there.
:If they have not done so, I wish they would visit them. I can assure them they are most interesting, and they would get an idea of the splendid work we are doing. At Epsom we have upwards of 1,000 patients. I have examined the centre myself, and it is. most interesting to see these men at work, and also to hear from their instructors and from the doctors the extraordinary rapidity with which this return to work brings about a return to health. We have, as many hon. Members may know, workshops in connection with some of our hospitals as well as the convalescent centres, and we are doing everything we can to enlarge the usefulness of that part of our work. There are, roughly speaking, 3,000 men in the convalescent centres, and about the same number in training in the preliminary stages in the hospital workshops.
With regard to the improvements which we have been able to effect latterly, we have within the last year decided that for the proper treatment and handling of cases, and to give us a better opportunity of diagnosing a man's disability, to go in for what we call observation beds. In pursuance of this, a certain number of beds have been set aside in all the larger Ministry hospitals for this purpose. The period of observation is usually for three to four weeks. I am glad to say, that in a great number of cases very useful results have come from this arrangement. The other day I was reading the Report of the Regional Director of the North Western Region, and I came across the following remarks. He wrote:
"Great advance has been made during the year in the way of more accurate and reliable diagnosis in cases that had hitherto presented great difficulty.
A very large number of cases attended the specialist clinics in Manchester and Liverpool for that purpose; numerous other cases were admitted to various hospitals for periods of observation with the same object. In this way, the true state of affairs has been ascertained in many reputed or doubtful cases of epilepsy at Maghull; of neurasthenia at Mossley Hill; of tuberculosis at Knotty Ash; and of heart, kidney and tropical affections at Lower Breck Road. For, under close observation of the specially trained medical officers at these hospitals, a much more certain conclusion can be formed than by occasional visits to a medical man or a medical board whilst the pensioner is residing at home."
I think that is a satisfactory confirmation of the usefulness of these observation beds.
In regard to new treatment, we are always ready and only too anxious to adopt any treatment which is proved to be satisfactory. Amongst others the Insulin treatment, of which hon. Members have heard, and which has proved successful in severe cases of diabetes, has been adopted in two of our hospitals, Richmond and Orpington. Only the previous difficulty of getting possession of this new cure prevented our using it more widely. We have also taken advantage of the latest knowledge of tropical diseases, and have given successful treatment in many cases of bilharzia, which is a very nasty disease, and which had I understand been given up as incurable. It is due to service in South Africa. There were a good many cases of this disease after the Boer War, and some cases as a result of the late War. One of our best achievements is the work done in regard to cases of severe facial injury at the hospital at Sidcup. I have not had an opportunity of inspecting that hospital, but my right hon. Friend has been there, and I am told that the results are perfectly wonderful.
It will interest the Committee to know that a considerable amount of surgical work is, unfortunately, still necessary. Cases are constantly occurring in which wounds which have apparently been quiescent for a long period, in some cases for two or three years, break open again. In many cases they may affect and have affected the bone and amputation of limbs is still necessary. It is remarkable that at this distance from the War, amputations should still be necessary but owing to the highly poisonous nature of the shells and projectiles used in the War, the bones have been rendered septic but the poison has been lying dormant. The fact is very strikingly shown by the circumstance that since 1st January this year 302 men discharged from the Army have had to have limbs amputated. This is a very unfortunate but a very interesting fact.
The British Legion and others have for some time urged upon the Ministry the desirability of supplying separate accommodation and treatment for mental cases resulting from war service. It was decided, after examining the whole question very carefully, to experiment in this direction, and accordingly separate accommodation and treatment has been provided for those cases which might be considered medically likely to improve and to give favourable results from treatment of a different kind from that provided in public asylums. Accommodation for 300 cases has so far been secured in an institution in the South West of England, and cases are being sent there as rapidly as the internal equipments and alterations necessary can be supplied. Already between 50 and 100 cases are in this new institution. Further accommodation will be secured elsewhere as soon as the necessary negotiations can be carried through. Those who are keen advocates of this departure will be interested to know that experience has shown us that the removal of cases to institutions reserved specially for ex-service men is liable to the objections and difficulties foreseen by the Ministry from the outset. Relatives and friends have objected to the transfer of cases to a long distance from their homes, and consideration is bound to be given, in the interest of the patients themselves, to their wishes. Nevertheless, we hope we shall be able to do more in this direction later. I have here a statement in, regard to the men who were asked to go to this new institution. Of 176 invitations issued, 104 were accepted, and 72 were declined for various reasons. Thirty-nine declined the proposed change, because it would interfere with the frequent visits which could be made by relatives when the man was, close to his home. Fifteen declined the proposed arrangement, because the present arrangements were considered to be satisfactory. In five cases the proposed change was not considered to be beneficial to the patient. In one case application was being made for the patient's discharge from asylum, and in twelve cases the invitation was refused without reason being given. That shows that the housing of these people in separate establishments is not such an easy thing as was hoped. In any case, we have started the institution, and we are in negotiation for another institution in Yorkshire, so that people in that district who think that the institution in the South of England is too far away will have an opportunity of sending their friends there.
With regard to tuberculosis, as hon. Members are aware, a request has been made and a movement has been going on for some time to start village homes or village settlements for tuberculous patients. I am glad to say that something has been done in this matter. This is really more a matter for the Ministry of Health than for the Ministry of Pensions, and anything we do must be done in conjunction with the Ministry of Health. When a deputation from the British Legion went to the Minister of Health and Minister of Pensions last month, the Minister of Health pointed out that the new settlements are still in an experimental stage, but he promised to review the matter carefully with a view to assuring himself that these experiments were worth developing, and that he would endeavour to visit Papworth and Preston Hall, where village settlements have already been started on a small scale, before coming to a decision. He announced that the British Red Cross Society had promised £10,000 towards the initiation of a village settlement at Barrowmore Hall, Cheshire, where a sanatorium and training college for tuberculous men has already been provided. The Minister of Health has since visited Papworth and Preston Hall and was favourably impressed with the work which is being carried on at both places with a view to providing permanent employment for tuberculous men under sheltered conditions and constant medical supervision. He is now considering whether a satisfactory scheme, can be evolved which will enable a fuller test to be made of this method of dealing with tuberculous persons, and subject to such a scheme being found practicable he would be prepared to recommend the question of financial assistance for the consideration of the Government. Therefore, I think we may hope that in a short time we may see some of these village settlements in full swing and that we shall be able to judge more fully their usefulness.
I have confined my remarks entirely to the medical side of our activities, but before sitting down I would like to say this. Most hon. Members know that I have been in the Pensions Ministry only for a few months, not long enough to become familiar with the detailed working of its various departments, but long enough to realise the stupendous nature of the work which the Ministry has to do. When I think sometimes of what the control and direction of a staff of 22,000 persons means, and reflect what organisation is necessary to control all our hospitals and centres, clinics, and so on, with their 80,000 patients, to say nothing of the supervision of the 150 private or public hospitals in which we have patients, of which we have not full control, and when I remember the 2,500,000 beneficiaries who receive their weekly pensions and allowances with, as we think, clockwork regularity—I do not suppose hon. Members opposite will altogether agree with that, but when we take the enormous number dealt with and the very few cases which go wrong every week, it is justifiable to say that the scheme is working with great regularity —when I realise all that, then I am convinced that the country owes a deep debt of gratitude to my right hon. and gallant Friend, to the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, and to that already lengthening list of hon. Members who have preceded him in the office of Minister of Pensions.
When the Committee reflects that this huge machine has been practically constructed in five years, and when it recalls the tremendous pressure brought to bear on the resources of the Ministry by reason of the enormous rate of demobilsation in 1920, which amounted to as many as 60,000 men in one day, I feel that the Committee will agree that we are still able to boast of our organising power, of which we have always, justly I think, been proud. I think the organisation of the Ministry of Pensions almost as great a feat as the organisation of the Army, and that in many stages of its career it was very much more successful than the organisation of the Army. I wish now to say a word with regard to the staff of the Ministry. We have had criticisms of the staff this afternoon, and I firmly believe that they are not justified.
:They are true.
:They are not true.
:My criticism of the Estimates is true. My criticism was that, while there have been wholesale dismissals of the lesser employés, the upper grades have remained the same.
:I do not even admit the justice of that. But that is not the point of view from which they were criticised. They were accused of controlling the policy of the Ministry, and I think that on more than one occasion they have been accused of want of sympathy for the pensioners. That is not true. I can say that every single official of the Ministry of Pensions with whom I have come in contact is as anxious that the pensioner should get his rights as any Member of this Committee can be.
:Then why does he not get them?
:He does get them.
:What about private instructions?
:My right hon. Friend has noted the remark of the hon. Members who spoke on this subject, and will deal with the matter in due course. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Major C. Brown) said, no great organisation with 22,000 of a staff could possibly be run without carefully drawn regulations. My hon. Friend does not imagine that we should publish every Regulation in the "Times" or "Daily Mail." Every one of these instructions which have been referred to has reference to matters of internal management which it would be ridiculous to expect us to publish to the world at large, but if any hon. Member wishes to see any Regulations, he can see them, but to expect us to publish them would be absurd. I apologise for taking up so much time. I am relieved to note that on the Orders of the day there is no suggestion that my salary should be reduced, and that that devastating process is reserved for my right hon. and gallant Friend. I hope, however, that, in spite of that, the Committee will decide that, not only is he to go home with his salary untouched, but that he is to be given a mandate to carry on the Ministry of Pensions with the complete confidence of the committee for another year.
:The Committee is indebted both to the Minister of Pensions and the Parliamentary Secretary for their interesting and informing statements regarding the work of the Ministry during the past year. I give them full credit for the work which they have done, but no doubt exists in the minds of many Members of the Committee that much more requires to be done before the Ministry of Pensions will carry out the solemn obligations of the country to the men who have served. A very large number of these men are in a state of semi-starvation, or, if not, are existing largely on the charity of their friends or of charity organisations or of the parish. Not only that but, as one of them very aptly said in a letter which I received this morning, they have in many instances lost hundreds of pounds in wages. The Government cannot entirely relieve disabled ex-service men of the burden. The pain and suffering remain the part which the ex-service man has to bear, but it is the duty of the Ministry of Pensions to take upon themselves the duty of the relieving the man of any financial loss which he may sustain as a result of his disability.
In his interesting statement the Minister touched on many of the prominent parts of the Ministry's work during the year. He said that he sympathised very much with the disabled man who, because of the acute state of unemployment in the country, could not get work and was dependent upon a small pension. But, added the Minister, "We cannot agree that the man is entitled to anything more than the disability pension that has been assessed by the medical board." I reply that there is something else besides sympathy needed because of the man's difficulty through the acute state of unemployment. Because of his disability such a man has not the same value in the labour market as has the ordinary man. In many instances, because of his disability, he is an odd lot in the labour market, and he has the additional burden placed upon him that he is competing with men who are physically fit. Carrying such a burden, having a very small value or no value in the labour market, he requires more than sympathy from the Ministry. In another of his statements the Minister referred to the number of final awards that have been made. Those of us who are dealing with pension cases, both by correspondence and through the tribunal, know that large numbers of these final awards consist simply of the pensioner being informed that for six months or for a year or for 70 weeks at the most he is to get from 5s. 6d. to 12s. a week, that at the end his weekly allowance stops, and that he is then to get a gratuity of £5 or £10. If the man is dissatisfied his only redress is to appeal to the tribunal. When he comes before the Appeal Tribunal these statements of the doctors employed by the Ministry, that he will have his pension for 50 weeks or 70 weeks, are produced.
:The papers give the whole medical history of the man.
:That is correct, but I am talking of the medical evidence laid before the tribunal. It is exactly the same as that given on his medical examination by the Ministry when the final award is granted. In pleading the cases of these men I am frequently stating to these tribunals that I am strongly of opinion that no doctor is in a position to certify what the condition of a man would be 70 weeks ahead. I have pointed out to the tribunals that if I had been pleading the case of such a man before a civil court in a workmen's compensation claim, I would object to a medical certificate being produced certifying what the condition of the man would be 70 weeks ahead. Not only would I have so objected, but my objection would have been upheld by the civil court. Surely if, in a workmen's compensation case, a man can get an objection of that kind upheld, it ought to be upheld in a tribunal established for the purpose of doing justice to those who have served the State? Surely the State ought to be no worse than any private employer in the land?
I wish to place before the Minister a few of the difficulties with which those of us who are dealing with these cases are faced every day. They are difficulties which require attention before the Department is in the position in which the Parliamentary Secretary led us to believe it was. I am certain that no one rejoices more than Members on this side of the House at the good things that are done by the Ministry. It is because of the things that are not done that we level our criticism at the Ministry. What is the position of men who are demobilised from hospitals, and who would be eligible for a service pension or a combination service and disability pension, but are ruled out because they were not discharged invalided, although they may have become subsequently entitled to a disability pension under Article 9 of the Royal Warrant? What steps is it proposed to take with regard to the men who, under the panel doctor, are drawing National Health Insurance benefits in respect of their pensionable disability? Many men are getting spare-time treatment from the Ministry without allowances. No allowance is made to them although they are sent one day a week, and in some cases two days and three days a week, for spare-time treatment. That is a hardship that the men ought not to be called upon to bear. They ought to have an allowance for that spare-time treatment, although it might not be the same figure as that for full treatment.
In the careful analysis which the Minister gave of the medical institutions that have been set up and the various disabilities that were being treated, there was one omission. What is the percentage of cancer cases disallowed by the tribunal? Is it a fact that such cases are disallowed? Is it the fixed opinion of the medical men of the Ministry that such cases are not attributable to war service? Many of us have pointed out, in the course of the numerous discussions regarding pensions in this House, that it is scarcely possible for anyone to estimate the number of diseases that may follow on the hardships which were endured by men in the course of the service which they rendered to the State during the War. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in cases where a man claims in respect of disability, what steps are taken to ensure that the pensioner will not be again brought before- the same doctor who previously examined him? If it is the method of the Ministry that men are sent again before the same doctor— and we know in numerous instances that is the method followed—how can we ex- pect that the doctor will turn down his own decision on a second examination? In cases where a woman has been married after her husband's removal by disability from duty; where the soldier afterwards renders further service and is then discharged pensioned, what is the position of that woman in the case of her husband dying? Is it proposed to set up any tribunal to try cases of this kind, because those of us who are dealing with such cases find that, under the present arrangements, a widow in these circumstances has no redress if the Ministry decides that the disability was not aggravated by military service subsequent to the date of the marriage.
My next point is one that was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary himself. He told us that it was found in certain of the institutions that surgical work had still to be undertaken. I want to put this point to him as to the cases which have already been before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. What is the position of a man who has got a permanent pension in respect, say, of a gunshot wound in the foot when he appeals to the tribunal that he was not sufficiently compensated, when that appeal is turned down, and when a later development of the wound necessitates the amputation of the foot? What is the position of such a man? That is another of the points which deserve the serous consideration of the Ministry. In that case, the man has already been before the tribunal and the Ministry is very fond of telling us when we bring cases before them, that those cases having already been before the Pensions Tribunal they cannot get over that fact. I also wish to ask why should the minimum rates of permanent disability pensions not be reduced to, say, 10 per cent. That change, in my opinion, would reduce to a considerable extent the number of cases coming before the Appeals Tribunal, because the men would know that if they were given a permanent disability pension fixed at 10 per cent., then in the event of things growing worse for them in their later years, their cases would still be open and could still be dealt with through the machinery of the Ministry of Pensions. It would give greater confidence in some of the decisions and in the Ministry if such an arrangement were possible. I find also that men are being paid disability pensions on a lower rank than that which they held while in the service. I wish to deal more with broad general points, but I will give one particular case as an illustration. It is the case of a man who held the rank of sergeant for two years' active service. After he finished his service he got a disability pension and was paid on the rank of sergeant. That temporary disability pension has been converted into a permanent disability pension, but he is now rated as a private and, in addition to that injustice, has been asked to return the money which he received over and above that attaching to the rank of private. The last point I wish to put before the Parliamentary Secretary is regarding the case of men who have been before the Appeal Tribunal, who have had their appeals upheld by the Tribunal and who find thereafter that some official of the Ministry of Pensions informs them that in some cases they will get an extra £5 note, over and above what the Ministry told them they were entitled to before they appealed against it, and if they are not satisfied with that, they can appeal again to the Tribunal. This caused me to write to one of the officials of the Ministry complaining that there was one law for the Ministry and another for the pensioner, because we are told when a case has been brought before the Tribunal by the Ministry and decided that it cannot be reopened and that the decision is final, but evidently when it is in favour of the pensioner, the decision is not final, and the Ministry or the officials of the Ministry can reopen the case if they care to do so. I can give the Parliamentary Secretary chapter and verse for what I have stated.
:I hope the hon. Member will do so. I do not think it is possible that such a thing could happen.
:I will be glad to put the facts before the Parliamentary Secretary and I hope he will remedy this state of things. I am putting it to him now in order that he may do so. I have given a number of cases which are bringing great hardship upon pensioners in all parts of the country and which are heaping up difficulties for those of us who are doing our best to help the ex-service man to get fair play. They are cases which require to be examined and remedied before the Ministry can claim to be fulfilling the solemn obligation which this House and the country has placed upon them. They are not by any means all the cases that could be quoted, and I have no doubt there are other hon. Members who, before the discussion closes, will be able to point to other cases, I do not wish to take an undue share of the time of the Committee, but I hope the points I have mentioned will receive attention and will be remedied at the earliest possible moment, and if the Parliamentary Secretary hag had any difficulty in taking a note of these points I shall be quite willing to supply him with details on all the matters I have put before him.
9.0 P.M.
:I doubt very much whether there is any Member of this House who did not enter it subject to a pledge, given at his election, that on whatever other matter he might feel compelled to modify or change his opinions, he would at all times press the case of the disabled ex-service man, and it seems to me that if there be one thing which the course of the Debate up to the present has proved to demonstration, it is that the time has now come for all of us to redeem those pledges. There have been eight or nine speeches delivered, hardly one of which has been more than an excuse for the Ministry, none of which, if I except the speech of the Minister himself and that of the Parliamentary Secretary, could be described as an unqualified defence of the Ministry, and everyone of which has revealed four, five or even six important points for remedy. In the course of the few remarks which I wish to make, I have no fewer than four points which have not been touched on at all, but, first, I am anxious, with regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), whilst joining with him in pressing upon the Government for some such committee as he described, to inquire into the whole of the administration of the pensions system, to point out that the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to what were referred to as the secret instructions, was really hardly ingenuous, because it is within my recollection, and it must be within the recollection of many other hon. Members, that on a recent occasion questions were asked of the Minister, with regard to the instructions which were sent out by his Department—I am not referring to the Royal Warrant—to his officers, whether he could not publish those instructions in a. White Paper and make them available to the House, and he replied that he could not, because they were confidential documents and must be confined to the Ministry. It is playing with words to say that those are not secret instructions—confidential, if you like— but instructions the purport of which is denied to the public.
That was the whole substance of the charge made by the hon. Member, that the Ministry, while professing great sympathy with the pensioners, was issuing instructions which might, if carried out to the full, as they must be expected to be carried out, sensibly diminish the protection and sympathy with which the claims of the pensioners would be dealt with by those people to whom the task of dealing with them is delegated in the regions. I submit that the case of the hon. Gentleman has not been met at all, and I would like to ask the Ministry what is the real, underlying policy of the Ministry. Is it, as if ought to be, to do justice to the pensioners to the point of generosity, for I submit that nothing less than that will satisfy either this House or the country, or is it to take part in some Governmental scheme of economy and, by saving a little here and pinching a little there, while all the time— I wish to do them this credit—themselves being actuated by the sympathy which we all feel, and which is not a monopoly on this side of the House at all, being pushed by this policy of economy into making cuts which really the justice of the case does not allow? I should like to know that, because I submit that the position of the Minister of Pensions ought to be that of a trustee. He is the trustee for the pensioners, and it is his part to see that nothing is done which is in their disinterest.
May I pass to one or two small points, important in themselves, but, as compared with the magnitude of the whole subject, relatively small? I would like to raise the case of deafened ex-service men, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the case of total deafness is really met by a 70 per cent, award. It seems to me that for the purpose of earning his living—because that must be the test—the totally deafened man is in precisely the same difficulty as the totally blind man, and that must be the basis upon which the pension is awarded. I would like to ask whether the award of 70 per cent, could not be increased in those cases, and I would also like to ask this. I raised it once before in a question, but, although the Minister was good enough to say that he would deal with an individual case if it were brought to his notice, he would not give any pledge in regard to deafened men generally. The Ministry gives, I think I am right in saying, 25 lessons in lip reading. The acquisition of the art of lip reading is a very difficult one, and I am sure that hon. Members who have more experience of pension work than I have will agree with that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Especially for adults."] I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me that it is especially difficult for adults. We have not all the same quickness of apperception. Some people learn quickly, others learn slowly, and it must be remembered that the great bulk of these ex-service men are men who have not had the advantages of education which we would like them to have had. My experience, from cases that have been reported to me from my constituency, is that, in the case of a man who has not received a good education and who is backward, 25 lessons is quite inadequate. I want the Ministry to say, quite apart from promising to deal with an individual case brought forward by. a Member of Parliament, that they will go into this whole question again with their experts, calling in the British Legion to represent the ex-service men, and reconsider whether 25 lessons is a sufficiency.
In his very interesting remarks, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, dealing with the medical side of the Ministry of Pensions, referred to medical boards. On that subject I should like to say that it seems to me that there are far too many cases being reported of men who were perfectly healthy before the War, and who have been, and are being, discharged with the verdict that their disability has passed away; yet who are unable to resume their employment, and who indeed are not fit for it. I do not know what principle the medical boards apply in the case of a man who can produce evidence that he was in regular employment before the War, who never suffered from sickness, never came upon his benefit society, or asked for sick insurance money—I say I do not know on what principle the medical boards act when a man comes before them and proves that he is not only unable to do his old work, but in some cases not any work. I cannot understand how they can possibly find that his disability has passed away! I reported a rheumatic case which I think the Minister is still considering. It was a most incomprehensible case to me. Here was a man who before the War was in regular employment; not only that, but he had been in the Army before the War, and had never had a day's illness through rheumatism in his life. Now he has chronic rheumatism which prevents him resuming his employment. Yet he is told that his disability has passed away! I am sure that there will be some effort to make an explanation of cases like that.
I am very anxious that my hon. Friends near me should get a chance of taking part in the Debate I will pass over two other points to which I wished to draw attention, and deal with the specific point of what is called the alternative pension scheme. If I develop that in a little greater detail than I would otherwise have wished, I will explain to the Committee why I do so. There is a case about which I have had a good deal of correspondence with the Ministry. Finally when I was unable to get any satisfaction in the matter I wrote very strongly protesting, and pointing out that if what I asked, which was merely further inquiry, could not be granted, I should be compelled to ask the House to allow me to raise the question in Debate. I notified the Minister of that, and he told me he would be very glad if I would do so, and in that case he would read my letters to the House. I hope he will. I very much hope he will, for they precisely express my case. This case is a case of the alternative pension scheme. May I quote from a Ministry of Pensions letter, which says it is— well-known surgeon in the City of Nottingham. At least he was very well known before the War. He was a man who had a considerable practice. He was a city councillor, and he represented a slum ward in which he dispensed free advice, free medicine, and free food to all who could not afford to pay for them. He was a man who did the highest kind of public service. In consequence of the amount of work he was doing he was compelled, about 16 months before the war, to take a holiday. He went to Canada for his holiday. While he was actually in Canada recuperating he began negotiations to obtain another practice in this country so that he might commence work on recovery. The War intervened. He was a Territorial Force officer. He was posted from his battalion to a battalion in the Canadian Militia. He got very serious shell-shock during the War, and was invalided out. His condition was such that it was quite impossible—and is—for him ever to hope to practise his profession again.
In October, 1920, this unfortunate man was awarded a pension under the alternative pension scheme. That award was subsequently cancelled, and he now receives a disability pension of £84 a year instead of the alternative pension of £200 a year. May I deal with the grounds upon which this alternative pension was taken away? The point put forward by the Ministry is that he was not engaged in his profession for nearly two years, that is 16 months prior to the outbreak of the War. That is perfectly true. He had broken down in health, and had gone abroad to recuperate. He joined the Canadian Militia while in that country, but was posted to it from this country. This, however is the important point—the Ministry of Pensions say that on the most favourable assumption he was going not only to resume his career as a surgeon on substantially the same level as he left it, which would support the theory of temporary interruption, but was undertaking a speculative business, that is the working up a new business in a strange district. That, really, raises a number of rather important points. You cannot confine this alternative Pension scheme to the cases of surgeons and doctors. There are all kinds of professional men, engineers, barristers, solicitors, to take into account.
Take the case of a barrister. Suppose a barrister who had formerly practised in one circuit changed his circuit just before the War and then after the War, broke down. Would that debar him coming in under the alternative pension scheme? Suppose a solicitor, before the War, was negotiating for buying a partnership in another firm; would that debar him? Because in the case of a medical man I venture to submit very respectfully that it is not correct to describe the operation of buying someone else's existing practice, which was the case here, as undertaking a speculative business, and working up a new practice. It is just the same as the case of a solicitor who buys the good will and clientele of a practice. This doctor indeed abandoned the negotiations with another doctor in Exeter, for the practice which it was proposed to sell him did not come up to his expectations, and he commenced negotiations elsewhere.
All I asked for in the case of this man— and I submit it is a wholly reasonable request—was to have the question reopened, and that the man himself, or his representative, might come to London and have an interview with the Minister on the subject. That request on this doctor's behalf was refused, and the refusal was accompanied by a copy of the original letter with which this man's application had been turned down some time before. That was a great' disappointment to me, and I believe will be a great disappointment to those here who wish the Ministry to make good the undertaking which they are constantly giving to regard all these cases with proper sympathy. I venture to go further than that, and say—I hope the Committee will agree—that where a Member of the House takes the responsibility of vouching for the facts in a matter of this sort, and makes what is a very reasonable request, the Ministry should afford a further investigation— that the Ministry should not refuse, but grant it.
:There are one or two points on which I feel that there is still justifiable cause of complaint. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Pensions on the concise and clear statement which he made this afternoon, and I also wish to congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secre- tary on the sympathetic and skilful way in which they have handled the pensions question since they have been in office, and their wisdom in having given way on certain points, such as the segregation of ex-service men in lunatic asylums and starting institutions for the same purpose. I should also like to thank them for the courteous and prompt way in which they have always dealt with cases sent up to them by hon. Members of this; House. I think the main cause of complaint is an the question of the seven years' limit for widows' pensions After all, these pensions questions are not party questions, but it is a question of what is right and wrong.
I think the British Legion are absolutely right on this point, and you cannot get away from the fairness of the argument that if an ex-service man dies as a result of a disability sustained during war service, whether it is seven, 15 or 20 years after his discharge, his widow is entitled to an adequate pension. You cannot get away from the fairness of that argument, and I hope that the Minister of Pensions will give this point his most careful consideration and do the generous action. I heard of a case recently where a man had died who had been twice discharged during the War. He died as a result of his disability, and they worked out the seven years' limit from the date of his first discharge and not his second, and his widow lost her pension because she came outside the limit by about a week. That is not a generous way to treat these people, but it is a mean and stingy way. I feel sure that it is every taxpayer's wish that the ex-service man and his widow should be generously treated.
The second case upon which there seems to be a great grievance, and I think a justifiable grievance, is that of the final award. When the final award has been made and accepted there can be no claim for an increase of that pension should the disability became worse. The justification for this is, of course, that where the extent of the disablement decreases, the Ministry are unable to reduce the pension, and the contention is that the pension, therefore, should in turn be bound in the same way, and they should not be able to claim for an increase in the case of an increased disablement. At first sight this argument appears to be fair, but on closer examination it certainly is not fair, and gives reasonable cause for complaint. After all this final award is made by the officials and doctors of the Ministry, and the man has no say in the matter. Therefore it is only natural that if there is a reasonable chance of that disability decreasing they will not give him a final award. On the other hand without suggesting that they would intentionally do this it is possible that they might make a final award before the injury has developed to its full extent, and therefore it is natural that the pensioner should require some safeguard of his interest in this respect. As a matter of fact there have been no less than 23,335 final award cases where the disablement has been adjudged nil. Even if the attitude of the Ministry can be considered justifiable with regard to the question as a whole, no final awards of "nil" disablement should ever be made. In these final award cases after the lapse of a certain time, say one or two years, if the pensioner can produce medical proof that his disability has increased, he ought to have the right to appeal for a higher rate of pension.
Another ground for complaint under this heading of the final award is that when the Ministry has made final awards of less than 20 per cent., that is to say, when the pensioner is given a gratuity and not a pension, and has been got rid of altogether, in those cases which have been immediately taken to the assessment appeal tribunal, over 50 per cent, have been increased to a higher rate. I think this has given rise to the idea, which I am sure is unfounded, that secret instructions have been given to the presidents of medical boards to cut down pensions wherever possible.
:That statement has not been made from this side of the House.
:I do not suggest that that statement was made from the opposite side of the House, but such statements have been made, and I think what I have said is the reason for them. I hope that precedent will not crop up again in order to get cases adjudged at a low rate and to get pensioners out of the way. There is another point which makes a great deal of difference to some pensioners, and to one or two in my own constituency. As I understand it, in the case of a disability pension there are at present two methods of making the payment, and the pensioner has the choice of whichever method pleases him most. One of them is weekly payments in advance, and the other is quarterly payments in arrear. Before the War the pensioners were allowed to have their disability pension paid in advance, and certain of these pensioners, when they had their pensions reassessed in respect of service in the last war, came under a different Warrant, and were not allowed to have these payments made quarterly in advance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to continue the old method of paying quarterly in advance, which gives a good deal more satisfaction than the other form of payment. Another point upon which I think there is some cause for complaint is that when a dependant's or parent's pension has come under review and has been reassessed or removed altogether, no reason has been given in many cases for the removal or for the reassessment, and the parents and dependants think that when these cases are reassessed the least the Ministry can do is to give the reasons for the curtailment or the removal. It is a small point, but it is important. The last point with which I want to deal, and it is a point which I want to approach with some delicacy, is the question of the staff of the Ministry. The Minister told us to-day that the proportion of ex-service men to non-service men was 97 per cent. That is a high proportion, and I am very pleased to hear it is so high, but all the same I consider it is not high enough. There is undoubtedly a very strong feeling among ex-service men all over the country, and also among Members of all parties in this House, that the Ministry of Pensions should employ only and nothing but ex-service personnel.
In answer to a question recently the Minister of Pensions published a table showing the name, age, status on the 1st of August, 1914, or on a later date if they were established after that date, of 50 persons of the rank of principal clerk or above in his Department who did not serve with the forces during the War and their present pays and salaries including bonus. All these gentlemen were on the 1st of August, 1914, of military age. They were mostly between the ages of 25 and 40. They are all non-service men and in all cases their salaries and bonus have been very much increased since before the War. In one case I see the salary of a second division clerk was in 1914 from £270 to £303 a year and it is now £1,234 6s., and he was of military age when the War broke out. I want to make it quite clear at the outset that I do not in any way cast aspersions on the ability or the public spirit of any of these gentlemen. I have no doubt that all of them have earned their increases of salary and their promotion. On the other hand, the criticism I have to make is that far too many of these valuable public servants were allowed to go to the War, and I think I can say with perfect confidence that the position of a spirited man whose duties would not allow him to go to the War was very much harder than that of those who were able to go. At the same time, I do feel that the Ministry of Pensions is an exception, and I am perfectly certain that what the Ministry would possibly lose in efficiency by a transfer of this non-service personnel to other Departments and their replacement by ex-service personnel would be amply and with interest repaid by the increased confidence of ex-service men all over the country. I repeat I am perfectly certain that, rightly or wrongly, the feeling among ex-service men is that only those who actually experienced themselves all their trials are competent to deal with their affairs.
Finally, I hope that the Ministry in choosing its personnel in the future will exercise a little more discretion and care than perhaps they have exercised in the past. I understand there has been clericals employed at the Ministry who were previously chauffeurs and milk roundsmen. At present there is a very wide choice among the unemployed ex-service men as a result of economies in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, as well as among the ordinary unemployed, and I hope that when they choose their personnel for reassessing these pensions, as I understand they have a large number of officials who tour the country reassessing the various dependents and disablement pensions, that they will choose suitable men because they are the men who count. It is on the opinion of these men that the Ministry depends, and if they handle the cases with sympathy and discretion rather than with a rather rough officialism, I am perfectly certain it will make a great deal of difference in the country.
:There is only one case in which I desire very briefly to refer. This is the case of a man who for many years before the War had perfect health, but who, unfortunately, was completely blinded and was awarded a pension of 100 Per cent. He subsequently died somewhat suddenly, and there was a coroner's inquest upon him, and the police surgeon who conducted that inquiry certified that death was due to gasing, yet although this man was the sole support of a widowed mother, she is entirely denied any person. That case does not stand alone so far as I and other Members of the House are concerned. I have here a letter which was sent to me only last week from a physician of the Sheffield Royal Infirmary, which indicates what his view is as regards the way in which the Pensions Ministry and the Appeal Tribunal deal with some of these cases. He says:
"It would be a public economy, but would not serve its present purpose of obstructing appeals."
That is a statement of a very serious kind coming from a. man who is constantly feeling that there is very great injustice being done. In the speech which the Minister made to us this afternoon he referred to the proposal that voluntary workers should have their expenses paid. I think it has been explained to the Committee that, not only has that been done, but that a great deal more might be done in the way of paying the expenses of witnesses when appeals are brought. Surely these people who are inexperienced in making claims ought to be aided in their task, so that it may be carried through in the best possible way. I think their difficulties are not sufficiently recognised. They need help, and I hope the Minister will take this matter into consideration.
What is needed above everything else is to get rid of the very strong feeling of lack of confidence in the many decisions that are arrived at, and something should be done to establish perfect confidence. The more that is done the better it will be for all concerned. The suggestion made in the letter I read as to the tribunal sitting in Sheffield rather than at Leeds is one which might apply equally to other parts of the country, but I quote this particular case of Sheffield and Leeds in order to make the point. During the last six months 613 appeals have come from the Sheffield area to Leeds. That is a very considerable number, although I am told it is not sufficient to warrant the cases being heard in Sheffield. There are other areas, such as Barnsley, Don-caster and Rotherham, which are nearer to Sheffield than to Leeds, to say nothing of Chesterfield and other places. What is happening now is that something like twice the expense is incurred on appeals because they are sent to Leeds, whereas if there were courts in Sheffield much of the outlay would be avoided. I hope something will be done in the direction of facilitating the appeals which these people have to make, and in the direction also of keeping down expenses.
:I should like to add my appeal to those which have already been made with regard to the seven years' limit. This is a matter on which all sections of the House feel very strongly. There is a feeling throughout the country that we do not want to do anything cheap towards these ex-service men. These appeal tribunals are of course pretty expensive, and I do suggest that the Minister might see his way to provide for a man being allowed to produce the evidence of the doctor who attended him before he joined the Colours, and that that doctor's evidence should be taken into consideration. I have known cases where family physicians have given evidence very useful to the men, and I think the Minister would be wise in trying to provide for that to be done. Then a very important point is the supervision of orphan children. We feel that when a relative offers to take a child from a Poor Law institution it should not be possible for the Minister to decline to provide the benefits under Section 9 of the Act of 1921, unless under very exceptional circumstances. I know you have to guard these things very carefully, as people will come up and claim children for the sake of the money That is the danger, and I would far rather that these children should remain in a Poor Law institution than come under the guardianship of a person who wants to take them out merely for the sake of the money. The world is not composed of angels, but I hope the Minister will look into this matter and be prepared, if a relative is willing to take the child, to pay the benefit over.
Then an appeal has been made for help for widows in putting forward their claims. They ought to have someone to plead for them. Many of them are very frightened; they are unused to the Court and, like Members of the House of Commons, when they get upon their feet, their words go away from them and they also lose their reason—temporarily, of course. There ought to be some way by which they can be helped. I know the local pensions committees have been instructed to help them in their claims, but, as a matter of fact, these committees already have about twice as much as they can do, and if the widows are to wait for their help, they may not get any assistance at all. I know how hard the Minister has tried to meet these complaints. I feel there is no better man in the House of Commons than the Minister of Pensions. It is easy to criticise him, but his is a very difficult task. He is dealing with human nature, and that is one of the reasons why I dread an increase in the number of officials— why I am alarmed at the Socialist programme on the other side of the House.
:The hon. Member is now going somewhat beyond the question under debate.
:I feel how difficult it is for the Minister of Pensions to make his officials human beings, but I do hope that he will see that the people he sends round the country do have the sympathetic and almost human touch as well as a head. We know it would be very bad if those who were sent round were all heart and no head. When it was stated just now that this is not a party question, an hon. Member opposite called out, "We are going to make it a party question." That hon. Member, I suggest, should be ashamed of himself. It is all very well for people to fight, but I have great respect for the conscientious objectors, some of whom were among the best people in the world. I do not mean the political ones. I object to anyone trying to make political capital out of those men.
10.P.M.
:I have listened to a great part of this Debate, and many of the speakers have spoken about the sympathy of the Minister of Pensions, with all of which remarks I cordially agree. Some of them, however, have gone out of their way to point an invidious comparison between the Minister and his own permanent officials, and to say that they were totally lacking in sympathy. I think that that is a little ungenerous. As far as my experience is concerned, and I have had the advantage of coming into contact with, at any rate, the permanent officials of the Ministry in London, I should like to repudiate that charge with as much emphasis as I can. I think we do not realise that the officials there have no interest in being harsh on the man, and I have come across several of them who, as I think, are over-abundant in their sympathy with the men in every respect. We have to remember, however, that they have to deal with other officials who are not concerned with pensions administration—I refer to the officials of the Treasury. It is quite true that the House of Commons is fully prepared to sanction any Estimates on behalf of pensions. I remember that in 1920 the Pensions Estimate was £123,000,000, and every amateur Budget -maker assumed that for a good long time the expenditure on pensions would be in the neighbourhood of £100,000,000 or £120,000,000. That Estimate happened to be considerably exaggerated. The actual expense that year only came, I think, to £106,000,000, and now we have got down to the very low figure of £73,000,000 in the Estimates this year.
I agree that that is a very severe reduction. It is due to various causes, and I do think that the Treasury, when matters come before the attention of the Ministry which show the desirability of a little relaxation of a Regulation here or there, where by experience it has been ascertained that Articles drawn up several years ago might with advantage to the pensioner be modified, the Treasury should not take up the position that, once a Regulation or Article is passed, in no conceivable circumstances must it be altered. The Treasury seem to take the view that they cannot alter any Regulation, although they do not so much mind how much money is spent so long it affects to be in accordance with that particular Regulation. I was a Member of the Departmental Committee on whose recommendation the reorganisation of the local areas was carried out, and I think still, in spite of the criticisms which have been offered by one or two of my hon. Friends, with many of whose views I cordially agree, that that reorganisation was both in the interests of economy and for the benefit of the pensioner.
A good deal of misapprehension has arisen with regard to the so-called deprivation of powers of local committees. As a matter of fact, hardly any power which the local committee had before that Act was passed has been touched in the slightest. The only difference that has occurred is that the local authority was the agent of the Ministry for the purpose of distributing certain benefits in the nature of treatment allowances and other outgoings of that nature, but they had no discretion in the matter. Even in the distribution of these treatment allowances they had to act according to the Regulations and on the certificate of the medical referee or the D. C. M. S., as the case might be. The only thing that happened was that there was great lack of uniformity, because, as the appointment of the officials of the committee was in their hands, and they had the distribution, there were some committees which flagrantly violated the Regulations by which they were bound to act. The result was a great lack of uniformity, but that is very different from saying that the actual distribution of money within the terms of Regulations shall be by Ministry officials under the control of the Ministry, and it is very different from the general allegation that the committee were deprived of certain powers. I assure hon. Members that local committees never had any powers to make awards, and had no power of determination on questions of entitlement. The substantial powers which local committees enjoyed before are at present enjoyed by them, namely, to be a forum for local opinion, to receive all complaints, to look after the interests of the pensioner, to see that, if he has any complaint, the matter is brought to the right quarter, and to deal with various other matters which are appropriately dealt with by a local body.
The system of reoganisation is working quite well, but there is one thing which has been lacking, according to the experience so far as it goes up to the moment, and that is in regard to the local offices. There has been a considerable reduction in their number, and I think that was wise, but in the local offices there is a certain lack of liason between the local office, which, after all, is the office with which the individual pensioner comes into touch, and the local committee, before whom he has the right to go if he has any complaint. I hope the Minister will devise— I understand that the matter is under consideration— further machinery by which a closer liason can be obtained, so that the individual pensioner may know that, by going to the. local office, he can get immediately into touch with the local committee, which is the forum before which he can air all his grievances. I hope, also, that further efforts will be made to obtain more voluntary workers, because it was the essence of the reorganisation of this local committee administration that there should be in the local office voluntary workers who would be constantly in touch with the individual pensioners and would see that they were acquainted with all their rights and had every opportunity of airing their grievances and seeing that they got what they were fully entitled to.
I think the main ground of the complaints that we receive in regard to pension matters is that a person is held to be disentitled to a pension on medical grounds. It is mostly a medical question which is the ground of complaint and grievance. I think the Minister ought very seriously to consider whether or not the present system of medical boards is the best. Before a final award can be made under the Act of 1920, there must be a special board, which comprises at least a specialist, and there is an appeal from the decision of that special board to the Assessment Appeal Tribunal of the Lord Chancellor which was set up under that Act. In the ordinary entitlement cases, when a temporary pension is awarded, that is done by an ordinary medical board, and it is very significant that the number of appeals from ordinary medical boards, in comparison with those from special boards, is about 10 times as many. That seems to indicate that the Minister ought, if possible, to substitute for these ordinary medical boards, of which we receive so many complaints, the special boards which are set up for the purposes of final awards, and on which there are specialists. If that were done, we should have a better type of medical man deciding this vital question to the pensioner, and a good deal of the ground of grievance would be removed. It is, of course, very difficult for the Ministry to obtain the best type of medical man, and that applies particularly, I have no doubt, to permanent officials. It is obvious that the attractiveness of an official position is not so great as in the case of a private practice. I think, however, that if an attempt were made to assimilate the practice of the boards which now deal with final awards to that of all original entitlement cases, a good deal of the ground of grievance would be removed.
On that burning question of the need pension, which a parent or a dependant in receipt of a flat-rate pension has been induced to substitute on grounds of need, and then when he finds the need has gone away he is deprived of a pension altogether and is not allowed to go back to his narrate pension, I hope the Ministry will see its way to alter the last Regulation it made, and that in future a dependant who, on the ground of need, has had to change his flat-rate pension to a need pension, if that need ceases to exist, should be fully entitled to go back to the flat-rate pension, and I hope the Minister will be able to make some announcement on the subject. General instructions might be given to medical boards to deal on broader lines with assessment matters than they do at present. I should like to give an instance. I know of a colony set up under a land settlement scheme where many tubercular cases have small holdings, keeping hens and pigs, and that kind of thing, and in the open air they have gradually got better of their complaint, and the assessment is immediately reduced. As the result of that, some of them have to give up their small holding, which is not a very remunerative matter, and go back into the town. The assessment, which has been reduced to 30 Per cent., goes immediately right back to 100 Per cent., because on coming back into the cities the old complaint recurs. It is folly on the part of a medical board to take into consideration merely and strictly the temporary conditions of a tubercular case. Surely, it ought, to be taken into consideration what the real state of health of the man is, and if on returning to the city he would immediately go back to the highest rate of disability, why change the disability and thereby deprive him of his holding, which is the real cause of his health having improved? I could give many cases of that, and in matters of that kind a broader outlook and a more generous interpretation of the Warrant would not only be an advantage to the pensioner but would, in the long run, be economical to the State as well.
We have also heard a good deal about the reduction of an assessment from 20 per cent, to below 20 Per cent., whereby a final award is made of a few weeks' pension. We have heard of cases where they have come to between 15 and 19 Per cent. That is done in the present instance by re-survey boards. Those boards are only the ordinary medical boards which have no specialist on them. It is true that from a decision by these boards an appeal will lie to the assessment appeal tribunal set up under the Act but, as the effect of the reduction of a disability assessment of 20 Per cent. or less is in fact a final award, it should not be made in any case except by a tribunal which is competent to make a final award, and that tribunal is a special medical board on which there are specialists. If the Minister would see to it that these reductions of assessment to below 20 per cent., which have such a serious affect on the permanent position of the pensioner, should not be made except by such a tribunal as can make a final award a great deal of the ground of complaint might be removed in that direction. Another point is that where a pension has been reduced to below 20 Per cent, and a final award of a few weeks' pension has been made and the pensioner dies, his estate has been held not to be entitled to the pension to which he would have been entitled if he had been alive. That is a very small matter and rather a shabby trick on the part of the Ministry. I have no doubt it will be remedied in the very near future. We have heard a great deal about a man having been held by the decision of a medical board entitled to a pension, and then at some future time when the matter has been reviewed it has been found that a mistake has been made and the entitlement has been done away with. That has caused, perhaps, more complaint and more grievance than almost any other act of the Ministry. Where the Ministry have made a mistake in a question of entitlement they ought to stand by that mistake and not review the decision at a future time. It seems to me that the time has now come when an entitlement case ought to be considered to be a final one. This is not purely a question of a final award. Where that is made it cannot be reviewed, but where a man has been held entitled to a pension, even though the actual settlement is a temporary one, the question of entitlement should be settled once for all and not brought up again, and the only question which would thereafter have to be determined would be purely one of assessment.
There is one matter which would be of very great importance to the pensioner. The military and naval war pension differs from that of the mercantile marine in that the basis of determining the degree of disability of a man is not one of earning capacity. It is an artificial thing. For instance, a man loses a leg, or two legs, and a certain Per centage is laid down in the warrant, and for other diseases and disabilities the medical board have to assess what in their opinion is the disability, quite apart from the effect that disability will have on the earning capacity of the pensioner. It is too late in the day to hope to alter the whole basis of the pensions warrant, and on the whole it has worked very admirably, because a great deal of objection has always been felt to any inquiries having to be made as to a man's earning capacity if he has been disabled. It has been considered on the whole the best that, if a man has a certain Per centage of disability, he should be entitled to his pension, however much he may be able to earn by his own efforts afterwards. But there are undoubtedly very hard cases where a man under the present basis of assessment is only, say, entitled to a 20 or 30 Per cent, disability pension and yet is totally incapable in the labour market of earning a living at all. You cannot compare the case of a navvy who has a 30 Per cent, disability with a clerk. The clerk may be perfectly able to earn as much as he did before the War whereas the navvy may be totally unable, even with his 30 Per cent, disability, to stand the least prospect of employment. That is a very serious matter and a very difficult one to deal with. As I say, we cannot deal with it by altering the whole basis on which pensions are granted, and that would be necessary if we were to deal with it from the point of view of pensions. It might be dealt with on another basis altogether, that is by treating it as a question of unemployment and insurance. I think that the man who, although only 30 Per cent, disabled, is unable to obtain employment in the labour market should have special claims for unemployment benefit. It may be he is not entitled, by reason of his contributions being insufficient, or because he has received his full benefits, to unem- ployment benefit, or to sickness benefit through his own friendly society. The State ought then to come in, and there ought to be special State assistance to bring about an equitable State insurance scheme, whereby such men should not be in need or have to go to the Poor Law for relief. A scheme of that kind could be devised whereby the State, on the Ministry of Pensions Vote if you like, could undertake the liability of making it workable.
There is only one other matter, and that is in regard to the need pension. A great deal of grievance has arisen in the past, in that these need pensions have been reviewed from time to time, as many people think, very harshly, and that the pensions have been constantly reduced. I have looked through the conditions which had to guide the inquiry officers, and the committees in deciding on these amounts of the pensions, and I think some of the conditions are unduly harsh and ought to be mitigated. Let me give two instances of how the conditions work. For example, the dependant's need pension is calculated on something like this basis. We will say that a parent is earning 10s. a week, and that 20s. is considered to be the minimum amount on which that person can live. If that parent has three children, of whom one has been killed, and the other two are living, the other 10s. is divided into three parts, and only one-third part of it is attributable to the son who has died and because of whom the pension is granted.
It may be that one of the children of the parents has two or three children himself, yet he is still deemed to be contributing one-third of that 10s. towards his parent's maintenance. That is an unreasonable assumption to make. It is obvious that if a parent's child has already got a family of his own to look after, it is unfair to condemn him to make a contribution towards his parent. Another striking example is that in which a widow has been deserted by her husband. She may have been deserted by him for years, and she may not have taken steps in the ordinary procedure of the Courts to obtain a maintenance allowance from him. Although she may not have seen him, may never want to see him, and may not be in receipt of any maintenance from him, she is nevertheless deemed, under these conditions, to have been in receipt of the maintenance allowance to which she would have been entitled if she had gone to the Court, and for that reason her need pension is reduced. I submit that some of these conditions are unduly harsh, and that the Treasury ought to be approached with a view to obtaining some concessions on these points. If such concessions are obtained, I believe a great many of the grievances will disappear.
:I wholly object to the concession that has been made with regard to the seven years' limit, and I say-that it is entirely inadequate. I am entirely opposed to anything except that which gives to any widow the rights she would have had if her husband had died within the seven years. This matter was debated in the House in 1917, and the great fight was whether we should limit the warrant, as originally proposed, to death directly due to injury in the War or whether it should include aggravation. It has been decided, and rightly, in favour of aggravation. I spoke on that very point in 1917, against the limitation of seven years. Sir Arthur Boscawen replied, and said, in substance, "That is a long way off, and we will consider it when it arises. I wrote to the Minister of Pensions, referring to the Debate, and asking him to amend his warrant, so as to give the same right to the widow at whatever period the husband died if the facts of the case showed injury and aggravation. My letter was acknowledged, but beyond that I heard nothing until this amended warrant appeared in the Press. I object to it, and if the Minister cannot offer us some amendment of that warrant, on the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), I shall go into the Division Lobby against the Government, deeply as I regret it. That is a point which is vital to the whole consideration of pensions.
Having said that, I quite realise that the speech of the Minister, as a general speech, was most sympathetic and kind. On the other hand, I am brought face to face with cases with which I have to deal. After all, 99,000 cases may go right, and the 100,000th may go wrong. I have had two cases on this point, and I have argued them with the Minister. A man was granted a temporary pension of 7s. 6d. or 5s. 6d. for 70 weeks. The pension was taken away by a new medical board. The man appealed against that decision to the House of Lords Tribunal, which allowed his appeal, and said he was still suffering. Then a special board was appointed, and the man was given a gratuity of £10, which wholly ignored the decision of the House of Lords Tribunal, which decided that he was entitled to the continuation of his pension. From that £10, £2 7s. 6d. was deducted, so that he only got something about £7. I say that that is quite wrong. When that man's pension was taken away, and he successfully appealed, he ought at least to have had it restored for the period of 70 weeks at the rate which had been granted.
In another case, I have written to the Minister, but I can get no redress. There, a man had a pension for about 50 weeks, and was summoned before another medical board while his pension was current. He was told Tie was no longer suffering, and his pension was taken away. He appealed to the House of Lords, and his appeal was allowed. What did the Ministry do?
:May I ask the hon. and learned Member for the names of those men?
:The name of the first is Prout. I have written to the Minister about it. Unfortunately I have not the name of the second man on my papers here. Prout is a stoker petty officer, No. 231,213. That is the case of a man who had the 5s. 6d. In the other case, they had actually granted the pension— I have it clear in my mind—and the man went before the new medical board, and they said he would get nothing, and the decision of the House of Lords was ignored. That is wrong administration; I have written about this on more than one occasion.
I have a case of a widow who has married again. The husband was a man named Hook. The Minister has the letter before him, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman the man's number and everything. After his death his widow and child continued to receive the pension. The widow married again, and the child continued to receive the pension for some time, but eventually it was taken away. An appeal was made to me. It is said that we have secretaries. I write everything personally, and I see the people myself. In this case I inquired, and they wrote back and told me that the widow had married again. I inquired further as to the facts, and I found that the man was invalided in July, 1918, he married in September, 1918, and the child was born on the 30th October, 1918. I said, "That will never do. You cannot take the pension away because the husband wanted to make the child legitimate." I got back two answers. The first answer stated that the pension was taken away because the subsequent marriage was simply to legitimatise the child, and then it was stated that he was first retired from duty at a much earlier date, and was invalided in 1919. That is not proper administration and I protest against it.
I have several other cases, but I will only give one. There is a man named Lacey who served in the West Kent Regiment. He was shot through the right wrist and the buttock. He is an agricultural labourer, and he says—and I believe him—that he cannot walk any distance. For the arduous agricultural work which a labourer is required to do he must have fit legs. He has a wife and two children, and he has been awarded 8s. a week. That is wholly wrong. How they arrive at that figure I cannot understand. The man cannot get work. He has tried to get work. I have written to the Ministry about it, two or three times, and I can get no reply better than this:
"The medical report indicates that the function of the right arm would be completely recovered, provided the necessary effort is made by the pensioner to use the arm to the fullest extent."
That is awfully nice. How on earth is the man to do it? He cannot get work, and we know the conditions at present in agriculture. The Ministry have never dealt with my point, that he cannot walk for any length of time. The unfortunate fellow—and I say this with great feeling— has been starving with his wife and two children on 8s. a week. I have brought his case again and again before the notice of the Ministry but I cannot get redress. If the Minister cannot give some real promise that he will reform the warrant as to widows I shall reluctantly have to vote against the Government.
:I am happy to associate myself with hon. Members who have joined in congratulating the Minister of Pensions on the lucidity of his speech, but I am bound to say that we on these benches are profoundly disappointed with the spirit of that utterance, and we are not calculated to go into ecstacies over the alleged sympathetic administration which is attributed to the Ministry of Pensions. There has been evidence in this Debate of widespread dissatisfaction throughout the country with regard to the assessments, the awards and the allowances, and on the whole question of pensions administration. We have had exhibitions on the opposite benches which indicate, in some measure, a revolt against the Government on this particular Vote; but I say to my hon. Friends on these benches that they must not be unduly elated at that sign of revolt because it will not go much further than mere verbal protest this evening.
With regard to the wise suggestion relating to the reservation, so far as widows' pensions and the seven years' limit are concerned, if an arrangement, such as was suggested, to set up an independent Committee to consider the matter were accepted by the right hon. Gentleman we on this side would not regard that Committee as being one which fully meets the needs. We yield to none in our desire to have this very necessary reform, but the right hon. Gentleman has stated this afternoon that only 120 cases of the kind have been dealt with by his Department. I should think that he said that 70 had been treated in what might be described as a courageous and just manner. We cannot regard these 120 cases as being comparable to the tens of thousands of cases of disaffection and discontent with the meagre rewards granted by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Therefore we ask not merely for a Committee to consider this isolated case but for a Committee which will investigate fully so as to provide the necessary reform in all matters that have emerged during the Debate.
The Pensions Department for its first few years has been in the main a record of progressive reduction so far as pensions are concerned. £123,000,000 was the amount expended by the Department three years ago. That was subsequently reduced to £111,000,000 and then to £90,000,000, and this year the right hon. Gentleman is budgeting for £73,000,000. That is, in the opinion of Members on this side, an appalling feature of pensions administration in this country. There may be a desire, for economy, a quite proper desire so far as administration in the Pensions Department is concerned, but in our judgment there must be no economy whatever exercised so far as pensions and allowances are concerned. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon will not be regarded by ex-service men and their dependants with any degree of favour. It will be a message of despair to these people, and I am amazed that hon. Members opposite, who, in the days of the War, urged on the Government the necessity of providing in the most liberal fashion for the men who were serving and those who were suffering, should now differ in the slightest degree from their utterances at that time, and we insist that hon. Gentlemen opposite not merely in their speeches, but by their actions should be compelled to extend the same treatment to ex-service men as they decided to extend to them when they went on the recruiting platform during the War. If it was good enough then to ask the men to undertake service of the kind which was common at the time, surely it is desirable now to suggest that the Pensions Ministry and hon. Members opposite should support those on this side of the House in making such demands on the Ministry?
I observed that the right hon. Gentleman, in explaining the decrease in the amount which is to be spent this year, suggested that it was due to an improvement in the condition of the men concerned. Is it not more accurate to say that it is due in large measure to the medical boards' estimates of the men's disability? That is exactly the point of conflict between those on these benches and the Minister and his Department. The Minister said further—it was a most enigmatic statement—" We are compensating for the effects of a war that is over." In my opinion, that is an excuse which is intended to cover the reductions in pensions and allowances. We cannot consider assessments on the basis of decisions given by the medical board. In that respect the hon. and gallant Member for South-west Hull (Major Entwistle) was perfectly correct in his diagnosis. You cannot compare the position of a man who is disabled or partially disabled with the position of a man, even though he be unemployed, who is capable of accepting employment if such is offered to him. In addition, in the case of ex-service men who are in receipt of 40 Per cent, or 20 per cent, assessment, that is to say, of a pension of 8s. or 12s. or 16s. per week, the very fact that these men are not receiving the requisite nutrition, the necessary food, and that deterioration sets in as a result of their disability, is ample reason why the right hon. Gentleman should accord more generous treatment to them.
I suggest, therefore, as a constructive suggestion, that there ought to be a closer connection between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Pensions, so far as the treatment of ex-service men is concerned. The ex-service man should not be disposed of summarily by the Ministry of Pensions, as is the case now. That brings me to the question of final awards. In the opinion of the Ministry of Pensions it may be a very desirable thing that the Department should rid itself summarily of obligations which it accepted some years ago, but at the same time, if there is a final award, the Department no longer exercises control or supervision over the ex-service man, and that is fatal to the ex-service man. I submit that in considering the question of final awards the Minister's mind should be open to the possibility of some revision, in the event of some change, medical or otherwise, taking place in the circumstances of a man. I understand that by arrangement the Minister desires to occupy the remaining time up to 11 o'clock. I will say in conclusion that many points arise out of pensions administration which have not yet been satisfactorily explained or dealt with by the Ministry. We on this side are bound to complain, to voice the grievance, not particularly of ourselves in this matter— as, indeed, hon. Members on the opposite side of the House do in approaching the right hon. Gentleman—but of the very large number of our constituents who are as unfortunately placed as are the ex-service man and his dependants.
There is not a single hon. Member who does not receive every day letters from his constituents, some of them pathetic, some of them appalling in their description of the sufferings of those persons with regard to the difficulty of obtaining allowances, and so on, from the Ministry. That being so, it is bound, in the absence of generous and sympathetic treatment by the Ministry of Pensions, to become a party question. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) lashed herself into a most unnecessary fury with regard to the action adopted on occasions by hon. Members on these benches, and said we were endeavouring to make party capital out of the question of pensions. I have a very simple and, I think, effective reply to that argument. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are associated with the Government, do not wish partisanship to enter into so important a question, then I would beseech them to give the ex-service men that measure of justice and generosity which was promised to them in the days of the War. My final point is this: Hon. Members to-night have warned the Government that they will no longer Submit to having this intolerable treatment, meted out to their constituents. I ask them to carry that protest further than mere verbal expression, and to take it into the Division Lobby. Only by that means can they compel the Government to grant the ex-service men some measure of decency and comfort. I am not complaining about the right hon. Gentleman himself, but about the policy of the Department. He himself, no doubt, is sympathetic and anxious to do the right thing by these men, but the policy of the Government is one of reduced expenditure, and they care not whether it be on pensions or on education or on some other necessary reform, which means the well-being of the great mass of the people in this country, so long as they respond to the cry for economy raised by their supporters in the country.
:I will not stand between the Committee and the Minister for more than three minutes. I wish to put a point which has not so far been referred to in the Debate, and as I desire to limit myself to three minutes the simplest way to do so will be to put a concrete case in order to make my point quite clear. I refer to the case of Private Nash of my constituency, who served as a stretcher-bearer in France; was sent home and discharged; was admitted to hospital; had seven minor operations performed upon him; was awarded a. pension for disordered action of the heart and, six weeks after, died of abscess of the liver and multiple abscesses of the lungs. This was a man who before the War was certified by his doctor and his employers to be enjoying perfect health. For six years before the War he never lost a day's work through ill-health, but he came out of the War a broken man, and after a period in hospital and a number of operations, he died after being awarded a pension for disordered action of the heart. When he died, his widow applied for a pension, but her claim was disallowed. She went to the appeal tribunal and the appeal was disallowed. I am not complaining of the decision of the tribunal; they heard the evidence and knew the facts. What I am complaining of, and what I ask the Minister to give serious attention to, is the unfortunate way in which these cases are dealt with. In telling this poor woman she was to have nothing the tribunal did not say, "We have carefully investigated the facts, and although it may appear strange to you, we think your husband's illness had nothing to do with his service, and it was a curious coincidence that it should have followed at the end of his service." They say, "He was not removed from duty for the fatal disability from which he died, and no continuous medical history is shown." When Article 11 of the Royal Warrant was amended in regard to a widow claiming pension in respect of a husband who died from injuries received in the War or illness aggravated by War service, it was a grave mistake to make the condition that the woman must show a continuous medical history. It introduced a canon of evidence which does not apply in the Law Court in any other cases, which is wholly unnecessary and which should be wiped out. It necessarily gives the woman the impression that the case has not been tried upon its merits, and that she has been turned down on some absurd point of red tapeism. I ask the Minister to give this matter his attention.
:I think the Committee will agree that the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. McCurdy) can hardly expect me to reply to the very serious charge he has brought about an individual case, at the last moment, without giving me even the smallest opportunity to refer to the Department. I should like to say how glad I am to know that throughout the Debate the main principles which have been laid down by all parties in regard to pensions have not been challenged. As a Ministry, we welcome discussion, we "welcome suggestions, and we welcome help from all parties and all quarters of the House, and perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words about the relations of this Ministry to Members of Parliament. I do not think it would be right of me to mention that without paying, if I may, a short and imperfect tribute to the work which the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Murchison) has done for the pensioners. He has worked night and day, without distinction of party, with the sole object>of helping the pensioners.
May I say one or two words, which may, perhaps, help Members too? In the first place, I notice that some pensioners make a point of writing to a large number of Members of Parliament about their individual case, and I know of one pensioner who wrote to no fewer than 16 Members of Parliament. I do not know whether that was considered to be 16 cases of injustice, but if there were injustice at all, I should say it was injustice to the Members of Parliament who were put to unnecessary trouble, and I would suggest that the proper answer to a man of that sort would be to suggest that the Member of Parliament of the constituency concerned is willing in every case to do his best for the pensioner. I should think that if 16 Members of Parliament wrote and the man did not get satisfaction, then it is evident that the man had not much of a case. It is a minor point, but if Members in writing to us would insist on their correspondents putting the regimental number and the last regiment from which the man retired, it would make for a great deal of saving in time. I met a Member of the last House who was very indignant with the Ministry because we did not promptly deal with a case, the only means of identification of which was that it was a case of a Mrs. Taylor. I said we had 14,000 people of the name of Taylor on our books and that it would be necessary in some better way to identify the particular case.
Dealing with the Debate as a whole, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) dealt with the whole subject with that know- ledge which comes to those who have for so long administered a great Department. He knows our difficulties, and he is, therefore, all the better able to help us. On the point of précis , I am able to assure him that I have gone to the particular office in which these questions are prepared so as to see myself the précis in course of preparation, and I agree that they ought to be as simple as possible for the information of the pensioners. On the point of the 160 areas for counties, I am in agreement that in the present state of our work, with possibly one or two local exceptions, it is desirable for a time that we should stand fast where we are now and not keep changing the areas, to let the work settle down and let the pensioners get accustomed to the particular office and the particular people with whom they will have to deal. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Pielou) made a very interesting speech. We all welcome his intervention in the Debate, and, of course, that of the other disabled Members, to whom we all listen with so much interest and so much sympathy.
One point was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who is keenly and sincerely interested in this matter, and who made a critical but fair comment on the work of the Ministry. His criticism is difficult to carry out. He suggested, firstly, the abolition of the secretariat. Then that some of the regional directors should be done away with, and also, finally, that I should take charge of the work. But how can a Minister take charge if the secretariat which is carrying out the work is done away with? There must be a central staff of the Ministry, or the different branches might pursue policies that are different. I welcome criticism, and I do not wish in any way to be dissociated from the staff of the Ministry, and if things are wrong the blame should go to me. I do not admit, I cannot admit, that the great staff of the Ministry, be they civilian or ex-service men, are less in sympathy with the applicants or any less keen about their work than those who criticise them so freely. I may say that the ex-service men themselves are most appreciative of the work of the headquarter staff of the Ministry, and the most appreciative is that section of the ex-service men who are most constantly in contact with that headquarter staff and know it best.
The instructions issued by the Ministry were referred to by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and some others. They produced what we thought was going to be something wonderful in respect to secret instructions, I got a letter the other day, which I believe was also sent to you, Captain Fitzroy and to other members and I could not quite make out what it was about. There was something about a lady named Joanna Southcott, and it told of a box which had to be opened, and when that box was opened all sorts of wonderful things would be discovered in it; it was only the fault of the Bishops that it was not opened. It is quite obvious that the Labour party, who have got possession of some of our detailed instructions, thought that they had got a box which when opened would be found to contain much, but in fact it contained very little. What did they discover? The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) quoted a particular instruction. I do not blame him for not knowing the reason for that instruction, and I will tell him what it was. Ex-service men, in spite of what the last speaker but one said, are anxious to get final awards. Many of the medical boards had rather hesitated about giving final awards, and the suggestion was put to me that possibly the medical boards were waiting until the disability got a little lower and then the men would be paid off at a lower rate. That point is fully appreciated on the other side. It was suggested that they were paid off with a final weekly allowance. Therefore at the wish and with the goodwill, and, I may add, with the gratitude of the ex-service men we issued an instruction to the medical boards not to wait, certainly not to wait long, on the chance that the disability might get less, but to get on with the work, and make final awards of pensions in order that the men might have removed from them any anxiety as to the medical boards about which we have, naturally, heard much. In other words that instruction was in the interests of the ex-service men and as such it has been successful. More awards are being given over 20 per cent, more, because they are not waiting so long.
:What about the secrecy of the instruction?
:I come to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Major Brown). He is one who has not merely spoken eloquently about pensions but he has done the work. He brought out points from his knowledge of the work and his knowledge of the needs of pensioners. His first point was with reference to training. When the hon. Member for Hexham said he had a constituent who could not get training because, though otherwise eligible, he was too late in applying the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) said that he ought to get it in spite of the time limit, but the right hon. Gentleman did not make it clear that was at the labour Ministry when that time limit was imposed. I am glad to be able to announce that we have made an important concession on this subject. I have now arranged with the Ministry of Labour that disabled men under treatment who are found to be unable to go back to their old jobs because of disablement shall be enabled to go from a convalescent centre to a Ministry of Labour training centre so as to get a technical training in a new trade. I am sure that both hon. Members who raised this point will be pleased at that result.
The next point raised by the hon. Member for Hexham was the question of need pensions. The hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. F. Martin) said he thought that the flat-rate pension was not a good one. That is profoundly true, and we have tried to work rather in the direction of need pensions at a higher rate graduated by the needs of a particular case or a particular family rather than give a flat rate all round or a parents' pension to people who are quite well off and to whom such a pension is of no value. We are in favour of need pensions at a higher rate rather than flat-rate pensions. A parent may be getting 5s. a week as a flat-rate pension. He may fall on bad times and be worse off, and he then comes on to the need pension and relinquishes the 5s. flat rate. Then again he ceases to be in need and loses both need and flat rate pensions In this case it seems to us just to give the parent the chance of something like reversion, and we propose to make a concession of some value. We think that the simplest way of carrying that out will be to have some arrangement which will guarantee that the need pension even if the parents get better off will never drop below 5s. if the parents previously had the flat rate pension. That makes the 5s. sure, and it does it in the simplest way from the administrative point of view.
I come now to a very vital matter, and that is the question of the widows. There may be some hon. Members who were not present when I made my original statement. The main point is, can these widows get a pension after seven years? It is not so important whether they get it under one warrant or under another warrant. The main point is, do they get the pension? The answer is that there is now no time limit whatever to the possibility of a widow of a pensioner drawing a pension at the full Article 11 rate if her husband's death can be shown to have been wholly or directly the result of war service. That applies whether a pension is under or over 50 per cent.
Now we come to the question as to whether any further change can be made. I would put it to the Committee that it is on the initiative of the Ministry that we have effected this change and that it is working well. At the present time there are very few men who have died after the seven years' limit, and we have come to this decision under which many of those widows will be able to get pensions and have actually got them. Out of the 120 claims, and all claims are not well founded, we have granted under the new arrangement 76, so that the main point, "Can a widow get a pension for her husband who died over the seven year limit?" has been favourably decided in the sense desired by those who have been urging this matter upon the House. But there are further questions as to which Section it shall be under, and whether it shall be in the Warrant. This widow question is one of the problems of the greatest difficulty for the country. I would remind the House of a speech which I made elsewhere in which I said that, if I was to make any criticism of the pension system of another country it would be this, that under the old pension system in the United States they erred, in my humble opinion, in having spent enormous amounts of money a long time after the War. Personally I think is is better to spend the bulk of the money when the men have just come back from the war, seriously injured and wounded. If you break down all the time limits of every sort in regard to widows, you will have, as you have in the United States of America, the extraordinary position of 63 widows drawing pensions as war widows of the war of 1812. There is the still more extraordinary case of the widow who succeeded in drawing until 1906 a war pension for the war in which George Washington took part.
I would ask responsible Members in all parts of the House not to urge us to come to a conclusion under which we might have to spend, large sums of money wrongly. What we want to do is to spend it on the right people at the right time. That is the great duty of the Ministry and, with all respect, I can assure hon. Members that applications for pensions are not confined to those who are entitled to them. Therefore, in view of the importance of getting the money spent in the best way, and of not opening the flood gates of expenditure on the wrong people, and of doing what the House really wants to do, which is to compensate the women who lost their husbands through the War, I ask the Committee to accept the new decision which is now working. While I will undertake, in view of the desire of hon. Members for a Committee, that there shall be one, I cannot, in courtesy, agree to go past my own Advisory Committee.
:Are there any Members of this House upon it?
:There are Members of all parties in this House, including the Labour party, as well as representatives of the British Legion upon it. We have also—what we should not have had if we confined it to representatives of this House— representatives of the voluntary workers, who know so much about these affairs. I am prepared to put this matter before the Advisory Committee at the earliest possible moment that they can go into it, but I must give them some notice of the work they are to be called upon to do. I wish to put it before them in order to see what steps they will recommend in this difficult matter. I think, therefore, the Committee will see that in fact pensions are now being paid after the seven years' limit, so that the promises made are being fulfilled in actual cash payments at the present moment and that we are prepared to explore this problem somewhat further.
I do not wish to go at this late hour into any controversial subject. I greatly appreciate the Debate we have had. In doing work which, however badly or well it may be done, is by universal agreement very difficult, it is an encouragement to find so many hon. Members making helpful suggestions. I can assure hon. Members that from whatever party in the House the suggestions come, they will be considered solely from the point of view of the interests of the pensioners. I think the Committee, which is interested in the welfare of insane ex-service men, should know that we have now actually got started at Salisbury an institution, separate from the other lunatic asylums of the country, where we keep separately a number of ex-service men. There are already about 100 of them there. I have visited them, and was favourably impressed with their surroundings, and with the work which is being done here. They, too, seemed to be pleased with their surroundings. Further, we are developing, in connection with nerve cases, a centre at Saltash, where we hope we shall be able to do more and more to restore these men to take their place in the civil life of the country.
I thank the Committee. I endeavoured, in my opening remarks, not to put forward anything controversial, but to lay simple facts before it, for comment, criticism and advice. I think I may say I have done my best to bring these matters forward, and I hope, therefore, in view of the decision we have arrived at, to go further into the seven years' limit question, and in view of the fact that pensions are being paid over the seven years' limit, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
:In view of the reassuring statement of my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
:No!
:Although I do not agree with some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has said, I have learned the value of compromise, and I feel that as regards the widows to whom I referred they have such a strong case that they need have no fear in going before the Committee. If the Minister will assure me that the Special Advisory Committee will have special meetings to consider their case, I am willing to accept the proposal.
:That shall be done.
:The right hon. Gentleman stated that a special institution had been set up near Salisbury for insane ex-service men, and I want to know if he will recommend that arrangements be made that their relatives shall be allowed to visit them?
:I will go into that point.
:I desire to raise a question which affects the good faith of the Minister himself in regard to a pledge which was given by a former Minister of Pensions who now sits on these benches, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge). I think I cannot do better than say that—
rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 150.
Division No. 179.] AYES. [11.0 p.m. Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Curzon, Captain Viscount Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Ainsworth, Captain Charles Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoin) Hudson, Capt. A. Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Davies, Thomas (Cirencestor) Hughes, Collingwood Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hume, G. H. Austin, Sir Herbert Dawson, Sir Philip. Hurd, Percy A. Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Edge, Captain Sir William Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) Balfour, George (Hampstead) Ednam, Viscount Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Barnett, Major Richard W. Ellis, R. G. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Barnston, Major Harry England, Lieut.-Colonel A. Jarrett, G. W. S. Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) Entwistle, Major C. F. Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Jephcott, A. R. Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Berry, Sir George Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel Birchall, Major J. Dearman Falcon, Captain Michael Kenyon, Barnet Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray King, Captain Henry Douglas Blades, Sir George Rowland Fawkes, Major F. H. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Blundell, F. N. Fermor-Hesketh, Major T Lamb, J. Q. Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Flanagan, W. H. Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Boyd-Carpenter, Major A Foreman, Sir Henry Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Brass, Captain W. Foxcrolt, Captain Charles Talbot Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Brassey, Sir Leonard Fraser, Major Sir Keith Lorden, John William Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E Lorimer, H. D. Briggs, Harold Furness, G. J. Lort-Williams, J. Brittain, Sir Harry Galbraith, J. F. W. Lougher, L. Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Ganzoni, Sir John Lynn, R. J. Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) Garland, C. S Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Bruford, R. Gates, Percy Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Buckingham, Sir H. Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew Goff, Sir R. Park Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Gould, James C. Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) Butcher, Sir John George Greene Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Manville, Edward Butt, Sir Alfred Greenwood, William (Stockport) Margesson, H. D. R. Cadogan, Major Edward Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Guinness, Lieut. Col. Hon. W. E. Mercer, Colonel H. Cautley, Henry Strother Gwynne, Rupert S. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) Chapman, Sir S Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Churchman, Sir Arthur Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'by) Molloy, Major L. G. S. Clarry, Reginald George Halstead, Major D. Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Clayton, G. C. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Cobb, Sir Cyril Harrison, F. C. Murchison, C. K. Cohen, Major J. Brunel Harvey, Major S. E Nall, Major Joseph Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hawke, John Anthony Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) Collie, Sir John Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Henn, Sir Sydney H. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Conway, Sir W. Martin Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Cope, Major William Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell Hiley, Sir Ernest Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North) Hood, Sir Joseph Paget, T. G. Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hopkins, John W. W. Parker, Owen (Kettering) Pennefather, De Fonblanque Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. Penny, Frederick George Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth) Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Russell, William (Bolton) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Perkins, Colonel E. K. Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney Thorpe, Captain John Henry Peto, Basil E Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Titchfield, Marquess of Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Tubbs, S. W. Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. Sandon, Lord Turton, Edmund Russborough Price, E. G. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) Privett, F. J. Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T. Raine, W. Shakespeare, G. H. Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Wells, S. R. Rees, Sir Beddoe Shepperson, E. W. Weston, Colonel John Wakefleld Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Shipwright, Captain D. Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. Reid, D. D. (County Down) Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A. White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport) Remer, J. R. Singleton, J. E. Winterton, Earl Rentoul, G. S. Skelton, A. N. Wise, Frederick Reynolds, W. G. W. Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) Wolmer, Viscount Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.(Ripon) Richardson. Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill-(High Peak) Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H Woodcock, Colonel H. C. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Stanley, Lord Yerburgh, R. D. T. Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall) Steel, Major S. Strang Robertson-Despencer, Major(lsl'gt'nW) Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs. Rogerson. Capt. J. E. Strauss, Edward Anthony Roundell, Colonel R. F. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
NOES. Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hardie, George D. Phillipps, Vivian Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro) Harris, Percy A. Potts, John S. Attlee, C. R. Hartshorn, Vernon Richards, R. Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hastings, Patrick Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Barnes, A. Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) Ritson, J. Batey, Joseph Hayday, Arthur Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) Berkeley, Captain Reginald Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.) Royce, William Stapleton Bonwick. A. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Saklatvala, S. Bowdler, W. A. Herriotts, J. Salter, Dr. A. Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hill, A. Scrymgeour, E. Broad, F. A. Hinds, John Sexton, James Brotherton, J. Hirst, G. H. Shinwell, Emanuel Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Irving, Dan Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Buchanan, G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sitch, Charles H. Buckle, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, T. (Pontefract) Burgess, S. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Snell, Harry Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) Buxton, Charles (Accrington) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) Stephen, Campbell Cape, Thomas Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Chapple, W. A. Kirkwood, D. Sturrock, J. Leng Charleton, H. C. Lawson, John James Sullivan, J. Clarke, Sir E. C. Leach, W. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) Collins, Pat (Walsall) Lee, F. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) Collison, Levi Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley) Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Linfield, F. C. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lowth, T. Trevelyan, C. P. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lunn, William Turner, Ben Dudgeon, Major C. R. McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) Duncan, C. MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Warne, G. H. Dunnico, H. M'Entee, V. L. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Ede, James Chuter McLaren, Andrew Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Edmonds, G. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Webb, Sidney Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) March, S. Weir, L. M. Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Welsh, J. C. Fairbairn, R. R. Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Wheatley, J. Falconer, J. Maxton, James White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) Foot, Isaac Middleton, G. White, H G. (Birkenhead, E.) Gosling, Harry Millar, J. D. Whiteley, W. Graham, D, M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Morel, E. D. Williams, David (Swansea, E.) Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Gray, Frank (Oxford) Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Greenall, T. Newbold, J. T. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Nichol, Robert Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) O'Grady, Captain James Wright, W. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Oliver, George Harold Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Groves, T. Paling, W. Grundy, T. W. Parker, H. (Hanley) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Mr. Ammon and Mr. Morgan Jones.
Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £44,655,146, be granted for the said Service."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 273.
Division No. 180] AYES. [11.12 p.m. Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Hastings, Patrick Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart) Ritson, J. Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hayday, Arthur Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) Ammon, Charles George Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland) Attlee, C. R. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.) Royce, William Stapleton Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Saklatvala, S. Barnes, A. Herriotts, J. Salter, Dr. A. Batey, Joseph Hill, A. Scrymgeour, E. Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hirst, G. H. Sexton, James Bowdler, W. A. Irving, Dan Shinwell, Emanuel Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Broad, F. A. John, William (Rhondda, West) Sitch, Charles H. Brotherton, J. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Smith, T. (Pontefract) Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Snell, Harry Buchanan, G. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) Buckle, J. Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East) Stephen, Campbell Burgess, S. Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) Buxton, Charles (Accrington) Kirkwood, D. Sullivan, J. Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Lawson, John James Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) Cape, Thomas Leach, W. Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) Charleton, H. C. Lee, F. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Clarke, Sir E. C. Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley) Trevelyan, C. P. Collison, Levi Linfield, F. C. Turner, Ben Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lowth, T. Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon) Warne, G. H. Duncan, C. M'Entee, V. L. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Dunnico, H. McLaren, Andrew Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Ede, James Chuter Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Webb, Sidney Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) March, S. Weir, L. M. Fairbairn, R. R. Maxton, James Welsh, J. C. Foot, Isaac Middleton, G. Wheatley, J. Gosling, Harry Morel, E. D. White, H G. (Birkenhead, E.) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Whiteley, W Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Williams. David (Swansea, E.) Greenall, T. Newbold, J. T. W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Nichol, Robert Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) O'Grady, Captain James Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Oliver, George Harold Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) Groves, T. Paling, W. Wright, W. Grundy, T. W. Parker, H. (Hanley) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Hardie, George D. Phillipps, Vivian TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Harris, Percy A. Potts, John S. Mr. Lunn and Mr. Morgan Jones. Hartshorn, Vernon Richards, R.
NOES. Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge) Edge, Captain Sir William Ainsworth, Captain Charles Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Edmonds, G. Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East) Butcher, Sir John George. Ednam, Viscount Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Butt, Sir Alfred Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Cadogan, Major Edward Ellis, R. G. Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Cautley, Henry Strother England, Lieut.-Colonel A. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Entwistle, Major C. F. Balfour, George (Hampstead) Chapman, Sir S. Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Chapple, W. A. Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Barnett, Major Richard W. Churchman, Sir Arthur Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) Barnston, Major Harry Clarry, Reginald George Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) Clayton, G. C. Falcon, Captain Michael Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Cobb, Sir Cyril Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks) Cohen, Major J. Brunei Fawkes, Major F. H. Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Fermor-Hesketh, Major T. Berkeley, Captain Reginald Collie, Sir John Flanagan, W. H. Berry, Sir George Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Foreman, Sir Henry Birchall, Major J. Dearman Conway, Sir W. Martin Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Blades, Sir George Rowland Cope, Major William Fraser, Major Sir Keith Blundell, F. N. Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Bonwick, A. Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell Furness, G. J. Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Galbraith, J. F. W. Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Ganzoni, Sir John Brass, Captain W. Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Garland, C. S. Brassey, Sir Leonard Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Gates, Percy Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Curzon, Captain Viscount Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Briggs, Harold Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead) George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Brittain, Sir Harry Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Goff, Sir R. Park Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Gould, James C. Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Gray, Frank (Oxford) Bruford, R. Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Buckingham, Sir H. Dawson, Sir Philip Greenwood, William (Stockport) Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew Dudgeon, Major C. R. Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Guthrie, Thomas Maule Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Russell, Alexander West- (Tynemouth) Gwynne, Rupert S. Manville, Edward Russell, William (Bolton) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Margesson, H. D. R. Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by) Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Halstead, Major D. Mercer, Colonel H. Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Sandon, Lord Harrison, F. C. Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Harvey, Major S. E. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) Hawke, John Anthony Molloy, Major L. G. S. Shakespeare, G. H. Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Shepperson, E. W. Henn, Sir Sydney H. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Shipwright, Captain D. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Murchison, C. K. Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A. Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Nall, Major Joseph Sinclair, Sir A. Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) Singleton, J. E. Hiley, Sir Ernest Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Skelton, A. N. Hinds, John Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.) Hood, Sir Joseph Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Hopkins, John W. W. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Stanley, Lord Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh Steel, Major S. Strang Houfton, John Plowright Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Paget, T. G. Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Parker, Owen (Kettering) Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Hudson, Capt. A. Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Strauss, Edward Anthony Hughes, Collingwood Pennefather, De Fonblanque Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Hume, G. H. Penny, Frederick George Sturrock, J. Leng Hurd, Percy A. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley Perkins, Colonel E. K. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) Peto, Basil E. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) Pielou, D. P. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray Thorpe, Captain John Henry Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Titchfield, Marquess of Jarrett, G. W. S. Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Price, E. G. Tubbs, S. W. Jephcott, A. R. Privett, F. J. Turton, Edmund Russborough Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Raine, W. Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T. Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel Rees, Sir Beddoe Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) Kenyon, Barnet Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Wells, S. R. King, Captain Henry Douglas Reid, D. D. (County Down) Weston, Colonel John Wakefield Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Remer, J. R. Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. Lamb, J. Q. Rentoul, G. S. White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport) Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Reynolds, W. G. W. Winterton, Earl Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) Wise, Frederick Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Wolmer, Viscount Lorden, John William Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.(Ripon) Lorimer, H. D. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) Lort-Williams, J. Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall) Woodcock, Colonel H. C. Lougher, L. Robertson-Despencer, Major(lsl'gt'nW) Yerburgh, R. D. T. Lynn, R. J. Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Rogerson, Capt. J. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Roundell, Colonel R. F. Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs. McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I
rose in his place and claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
Agricultural Rates (Consolidated Fund) [Grants]
Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to the relief from rates to be given in respect of agricultural land in England and agricultural land and heritages in Scotland and for purposes in connection therewith, it is expedient to charge on the Consolidated Fund—
:I wish to ask the Government whether they can see their way to draw this Resolution in a lees rigid form. As it stands it ties down the Committee and the House to this particular method of granting relief, and in that respect it goes far beyond the Title of the Bill. The Bill is a Bill "to amend the law relating to relief from rates to be given in respect of agricultural land in England, and for purposes in connection therewith." That is a title wide enough to allow certain amendments of the rating law. I should have thought that if the Government had taken up this question and were determined to reopen the whole question of rating relief, they would have been willing, in the interests of good farming and of the community as a whole, to remedy some of the admitted defects of the old Act. They have not chosen that course. Every one admits some defects with the old Act, but with some want of intelligence the Government proceed along the old lines. I hope that the Minister in charge may see his way, by widening this Resolution, to leave it open to the Committee to deal with some of these points. It is not a matter with which any private Member can deal. We cannot propose Amendments which may have the effect of increasing the charge on the Exchequer. Therefore, it is only the Government that can do it. I am really trying to raise points of substance; I am not simply obstructing. I want to suggest three ways in which some changes might be made. One is a very old criticism. I am going to pray in aid the opinion of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman). Every one admits that the old system of the Act of 1896 grants relief where it is least needed and vice versa . I should have thought that it was possible to arrange a formula which would give more relief, not on a stereotyped formula but on a variable formula, either in accordance with the rental value of the land or in accordance with the parishes where the rates were highest. But as I read this—
:It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman is discussing the policy of the Bill. Discussion on a Financial Resolution must be confined to the method of carrying out the policy to which the House assented on the Second Reading of the Bill.
:I am very anxious not to get out of order, but I submit that the policy of the Bill is shortly expressed in the Title of the Bill, and the Title states that it is a Bill
"to amend the law relating to relief from rates to be given in respect of agricultural lend in England, and for purposes in connection therewith."
To that Bill and that principle, I fully admit the House has given a Second Reading. My point is that in the Resolution you go beyond that principle and you tie the House down to a particular method as though it were the only conceivable method by which relief from rates could be granted. I ask that the Government should relax the rigidity of the Resolution so as to allow of the consideration of other methods of carrying out the purpose of the Bill. I suggest certain methods by which relief might be granted are ruled out by the rigidity of the Resolution, and if I am in Order on that point, I should like to pursue my argument. As I read the Resolution, you are tied down to granting a relief of one quarter of the rates to the occupiers of agricultural land in each case. If you had a variable formula, so that land rented at £4 an acre should not receive the greatest relief under the new Act, and the land rented at 5s. an acre should not receive the least, I think you would be able to deal with one of the admitted defects of the old Act. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford shares that view. I do not like to quote instances of 20 years ago, but before the Local Taxation Commission he said—
"I think it is a bad Measure because the land best able to bear the burdens gets most relief and the land least able to bear the burden gets least relief."
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has not changed his opinion on that point. If the Government leave it open to debate these proposals and work out a formula of the kind I have suggested, I think the Bill will be less open to criticism. There is another method in which relief might be granted. This is a suggestion which I make upon the high authority of Lard, Ernie. In an article of his on "Agriculture To-day," he does not approve of this method of granting relief, but he suggests it would not be unreasonable for farmers to ask to have set off against their rates, some proportion of the money value represented by the manures and fertilisers employed on their holdings whether grass or arable. It is this outlay which prevents the exhaustion of the land. [ Interruption. ]
:I must ask hon. Members not to indulge in loud conversation while the hon. Member is addressing the Committee.
:That is another method by which relief can be granted. It is certainly within the title of the Bill, but it clearly could not be adopted if this Resolution was passed because the Resolution narrows the scope of the Bill, and ties it down to a particular method. I do not know if the Minister of Agriculture has considered the suggestion of Lord Ernie as an alternative. I think it is reasonable because it treats the land, not as raw material but as the plant of the industry which requires certain expenditure in order to maintain its rateable value. I should have thought that, just as in the case of buildings you allow a certain proportion for repairs, so it would be reasonable to ask that if a farmer, farming well, chose to maintain the fertility of his land by expenditure on manures and so on, he ought to be in a position to set off against his rateable value some proportion, probably an arbitrary proportion, of that expenditure in reduction of the rateable value. That is a different method of granting relief to occupiers of agricultural land. It would, I believe, encourage good farming, and it is reasonable in itself, but if this Resolution were passed, it is quite clear that that kind of suggestion could not be put to the Minister of Agriculture, and, therefore, I would ask him now whether he cannot see his way to make the Resolution less rigid, and leave us free to propose any Amendment which it would have been open to us to propose under the Title of the Bill.
There is one other point, which I think is also in order. Under the working of the present scheme, it has been noticed that the owners of agricultural land are relieved at the expense of other rural rate payers. A great burden falls upon the cottages. They are buildings, and—
:I cannot see that this is in order. His Majesty's recommendation has been signified to a grant which the House desires to make, a certain grant from the Consolidated Fund to make up a certain deficiency which will arise by reason of certain reductions, but I am certain that it has not been signified to an alternative scheme of rating whereby cottage and. other property will be relieved.
:I accept your ruling, Mr. Hope, and content myself by saying that there are other means under which alternative methods could be adopted, and I give them as an illustration. What I would really like to see would be the addition, after the words in the Resolution "liable to pay rates," of the words "or by other Amendments under the said Act." We have been challenged as to the kind of methods by which we would deal with this problem. We are limited by the forms of the House, and we cannot put our full proposals forward, but I think I have put enough before the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that he is, by this Resolution, unduly curtailing the liberties and opportunities of this House, and confining discussion to one particular method of securing relief when there are other and, as I believe, better methods.
:I think the Government ought to be satisfied with the good work they have done to-day, and I rise to object to this Resolution for two reasons. First of all, I object to taking a Money Resolution after Eleven o'clock at night, and, secondly, I object to it because it is a combination of two Resolutions, and I desire, as representing a Scottish constituency, to have a separate Money Resolution for Scotland. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that before the Second Reading of this. Bill I had down a Motion asking that this Rill be divided into two parts. The present Government have on more than one occasion in this Session made Scotland feel that it was really an inferior partner. For the first time on record we have now had all-Scottish Measures included in English Bills.
I should like to draw attention to this, particular Bill. The first six Clauses deal entirely with England; from the seventh to the end it refers to Scotland. The only Clause that applies to both countries is Clause 13, the money Clause. The facts are obvious and clear. One part of the Bill has been drafted for England, the second part for Scotland. These two parts have been pressed together like a concertina, and the Financial Clause added. The Minister of Health said he expected the Motion that was down in my name—that this Bill should be divided into two parts. Therefore the Government itself has got a guilty mind—
:The right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the Bill. He can move to omit the second part of the Resolution. He can show, too, that the unifying principle of the Resolution ought not to apply to Scotland; that is the proper way of dealing with the Resolution before the Committee.
:I am sorry if I have in any way incurred your displeasure, but I was merely using that fact as an argument. The real point of my argument is that not only the Minister of Health but the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Health, Scotland, were put up to explain the Scottish position as dealt with in the White Paper. And the Solicitor-General for Scotland got up and explained the separate rating system of Scotland. My contention is that in view of that fact, admitted by the Government in so many words, that the Scottish rating system is quite different from the English rating system, that we should have not only a separate money Resolution but also a separate Bill.
:I beg to move, in paragraph ( a ), after the word "grant" ["any addition annual grant"], to insert the words
"not exceeding two million seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds."
I am sorry that this is a manuscript Amendment, but it is not my fault. I confess I think this is a wise and necessary precaution that the House should take to protect itself against an increased charge in the future. The figure is one, as the Committee will be aware, that which the Government themselves have given in the last page of their White Paper as the estimated amount that will be charged upon the Con- solidated Fund for the current year. We recollect what happened in 1896 when the sum estimated for as being adequate was many millions below what was required to give a corresponding result. We do not anticipate that there will be a similar increase in wages during the next two years, but there is no certainty that there may not be an increased charge, and unless some such words as these are inserted we may be passing a financial Resolution which will burden the Exchequer with an even larger sum than is provided for in the Resolution. I hope that the Minister will accept these words, which merely put into the Resolution what the Government say is their intention. Surely it is very desirable that the taxpayers who are providing this grant to agricultural areas should not be further burdened when their own rates are already 15s. and 20s. in the £ in their own areas in order to relieve people whose rates average only 11s. in the £. My object in moving this Amendment is to protect the taxpayer against another additional financial burden next year.
:I beg to second this Amendment. My only objection to the Amendment is that it hardly goes far enough. I confess that this Amendment, seems to me to be the very minimum which is necessary in order to make this Resolution even tolerable to the House. I should like to commence by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman responsible for this Resolution upon the only good thing I see in it, and that is the Standing Order under which it is introduced. It is brought in under Standing Order 71A and, as the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, by adopting that novel procedure he succeeds in depriving the Committee of the only opportunity it would otherwise have, namely, of moving an increased charge. There certainly ought to be some occasion for doing that, and under these circumstances it is all the more necessary that due deliberation and discussion should be given to this Money Resolution. It appears to me that some stringent limitation is required because, as the Resolution stands, it appears to me to contain every single vice that a Money Resolution can contain. If there is one thing more essential than another upon an occasion when this Committee is called upon to vote public money it should be a canon in such a procedure that the Com- mittee should have before it the whole of the financial scheme proposed by the Government in relation to the subject-matter under consideration. In that canon the Government have most conspicuously failed. I have to confess that I am not- an expert in agriculture and that, unfortunately, I am not even acquainted with the details of the Bill for the relief of agriculture now occupying the attention of this House. Those which appear to me to be of more special interest are the Bills intended to relieve agriculture through the machinery of credits, the Bill for the relief of agriculture through the machinery of rates, and shortly we are promised a Bill for the special relief of those whose livelihood depends upon agriculture. There are many members of this House who cannot be acquainted with the financial provisions to be made under these Bills, and it amounts to a positive abuse of the machinery of procedure of this House that what ought to be a single, large, comprehensive scheme for the relief of agriculture should be put before the House in this piecemeal manner and that we are asked to decide on each single Bill before we know what the other Bills are to be. It is a very great vice, and we ought to emphasise that this is not a satisfactory manner of conducting public business.
The second canon of which I may call a virtuous Money Resolution is that it should be designed to vote the money in the best way possible in order to achieve the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to relieve agricultural rates by a grant from public funds, and it appears to me that the machinery provided by the Money Resolution as it stands at present is not the best way to attain that purpose. On the other hand, it is a very crude and imperfect way. It will not attain that purpose in a method which is the least satisfactory either to scientific legislation or to the interests of agriculture or to the benefit of the taxpayer, and there ought to be a very much more careful consideration given to the basis on which this subsidy should be allocated as between districts and as to assessment. I should not be content to vote this subsidy in any form of agriculture, but, even if I were to accept the principle of the Bill, I should not be prepared to accept the money resolution unless a very much more careful differentiation was made between the districts and the allocation of the subsidy between the various parties subject to assessment. The third canon of a good money resolution is that it should vote not more money for the purpose than the public purse can afford. I confess I feel the very greatest doubt whether at the present time the public purse can possibly afford this money we are asked to vote to-night. I would ask the Committee to consider what is actually in progress in this Resolution. Here we are being asked to vote a sum of £2,750,000 for a grant in aid of the rates. The point is that this is a subsidy from the public funds not included in the Budget scheme. I would like to offer a word of warning to the front Treasury Bench and particularly to the Treasury Ministers against the path they have set out to follow now by these constant breaches in the walls of their Budget finance. We have been considering concessions in the way of pensions and no doubt they are very admirable. We have made concessions in the way of extra pay for civil servants and no doubt that is also admirable, and now we are being asked to make further concessions to agriculture. I would like to ask if the cost of this last concession has been carefully considered? All we know is that this year our total public expenditure is to go up for the first time for several years instead of coming down. It may be that the Government are perfectly assured that the expenses which we are now being called upon to vote will be easily met out of the supplies which have been provided for in the Budget. On that I will only make this observation. Let us take careful note of this circumstance that while these extra expenses are being proposed right and left, they cause no sort of agitation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he will be able to foot the bill. Is that not most conclusive evidence that he is placing a certain amount of reliance on the income budgeted for being more favourable than has been allowed for in the Budget. When in addition to other extra sums we are being called upon to vote this £3,000,000 such things seem to indicate that there has been under-estimating in the Budget which to my mind is a grave offence against sound financial principles.
12 M.
:With regard to the criticisms which have been made in this Debate, the one with which I have the most sympathy is the protest made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) against taking this Resolution after Eleven o'clock. We should not have done this but for the fact that the rest of this week is being devoted to the Rent Restrictions Bill and there is also the additional reason that the House has passed a Resolution that we should take this proposal after Eleven o'clock and there fore we look upon it as res judicata. The Mover of this Amendment wishes to alter the terms of the Resolution and to change altogether the system which was laid down in the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading only yesterday. I cannot say that I under-stood in detail exactly what it was that my hon. Friend wanted to do. He briefly sketched the various improvements that he thought might have been made on our method of dealing with this question—
:When I interrupted the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts), I ruled that it would not be in order to pursue the matter, and I must do the same now.
:On a point of Order. Is it not the case that it was only one of my suggestions that you ruled out of order? I made other suggestions which, I submit, might come within the scope of the Bill, and I hope you will allow the Minister to make a reply to them, because my whole point was that this Financial Resolution restricted the objects of the Bill.
:It is quite true that there were matters in the earlier part of the hon. Member's speech which were in order, but he went on to speak of what ought to be done, or might be done in the case of other classes of property than agricultural land, and it was there that I ruled him out of order.
:I will not refer to that again. All that I wanted to say was that the hon. Member did not tell us in detail what he wanted to do, but I was able to gather, from the remarks that he made, that the system he proposed was going to be a highly complicated system. This question of rating, when you go into it, is most excessively and fearfully complicated, and we propose to deal with it in the future by proposals which are already in draft and which will deal with the system as a whole; but that will be a very complicated and difficult Bill, and it is until that Bill is passed into law that we wish to deal, not in a complicated but in a simple and easily understood manner, with this question of agricultural rates, which we look upon as the part of the rating question which presses for the most immediate treatment. Whatever else may be said upon the proposals that we have put before the House, and to-which the House assented yesterday, they are perfectly simple. They may be summed up in a very few words. They propose that in future agricultural land, instead of paying a rate of one-half the gross assessment, should pay one-quarter; and we propose that the deficit that will be thereby caused, and which, if no provision were made, would fall upon the-other ratepayers, should be made good out of the Exchequer. This grant, therefore, for which we ask, is not a grant to go into the pockets of the agriculturists; it is a grant to go into the pockets of the other ratepayers, who would have to make good the difference which there would be if the agriculturists' assessments, were reduced from one-half to one-quarter, and if no other change were made. Consequently, if this Amendment were passed, it would mean that, supposing that this sum worked out at a little more than £2,750,000, it would not be the agriculturists who would suffer, but the rest of the ratepayers, and I do not think that it is either the wish or the intention of the House that they should suffer. The principle that we passed yesterday was that whatever deficit was caused should be made good to them. According to the information that I have, this grant, as far as regards England, will come to about £2,750,000, but I am not prepared to pledge myself to an exact sum, and, therefore, I am not prepared to accept this Amendment. With regard to England, the first half-year's, precepts have been already issued. The second half-year's precepts will not be issued till Michaelmas, and consequently we cannot ascertain exactly what the sum is. Therefore, I do not want the House to be bound to an absolutely rigid system. With regard to Scotland, I am informed that the precepts for the whole year have not been issued, and consequently, in the case of Scotland, it is even more difficult to bind ourselves to an exact sum than in the case of England. No one wishes this charge to be heavier than can be avoided, and the information I have is that the estimate of £2,750,000 is, on the whole, more likely to be a little above than a little below the figure. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not press this Amendment, because I am afraid I cannot accept it.
:I rise, as an obscure private Member, to protest emphatically against taking this Resolution at this hour of the night. The Minister has been good enough to offer us his sympathy in having to discuss it at this hour, but it would have been more to the point if he had taken action to press his view upon what I believe are euphemistically called "the usual channels "before the Motion was proposed to the House after Questions to-day. The right hon. Gentleman tried to justify this effort to deal with only one corner of the question of giving relief to agriculture from rates, by saying that it is dealing with the most urgent question, but certainly, from the point of view of Scotland, that is not the case. From the point of view of Scotland, what is most urgently required is assistance for the farm servants and the smallholders—the people who have the hardest task, the people who are winning waste land from the hills, who are concerned with arable farming, and not with the wider and richer pastoral farming of the South. This Bill does not deal with the most urgent cases in Scotland—I cannot speak for other parts of the country. It is not the sort of Bill that we want in the North of Scotland, and, therefore, I venture to protest against its being dealt with in this way without adequate discussion. You have here two Bills, sewn together in one pamphlet and handed out as one. Clauses 1 to 6 deal with England, while Clauses 7 to 12 deal entirely with Scotland, and no adequate reason for that has been given. No attempt has been made to justify on political grounds the putting of these two Bills into one. Some attempt has been made to justify it on the ground of expediency, but that is the only effort that has been made. It has been suggested that it is necessary before July to get this assistance which we are asked to vote to-night for the people of Scotland, because the parish council budgets are made up at the end of July; but why should we not have the Scottish Bill first? Why should not we have Clauses 1 to 7,and a Scottish Financial Resolution?
:The House has decided definitely, by a vote the other day, that Scotland should not be treated in a different way. It is quite out of order to discuss that on this Resolution.
:We have not decided that we should not have a. Money Resolution for Scotland, and that we should not be able to deal with the Bill in the Scottish Standing Committee. If we could have the Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee we would shape it in such a way as would make those people whose interests Ministers profess to have at heart go pale with envy of the people of Scotland. Therefore, I urge the right hon. Gentleman, before it is too late, not to treat Scotland in this cavalier way.
:On a point of Order. Having regard to the Bill, the Second Reading of which we have already passed, is it not too late to make this speech? I submit it is far too late to do so.
:It would be out of Order to suggest a Bill for Scotland, but it would not be out of Order to discuss the amount of money to be granted to Scotland.
:That is why the Financial Resolution ought to be split up, and why we ought to have a separate Financial Resolution for Scotland, and a separate discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee. Therefore, I associate myself with the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) in the demand that Scotland, in this Bill, should receive separate treatment.
:I support the Amendment that the amount of money to be expended under this Bill should be definitely limited. I do so in the interests of agriculture. I have been concerned with agriculture all my life. I represent a constituency which is one of the most highly developed agricultural constituencies in the country. I think the amount should be limited, because, under the proposals of the Bill, a certain amount of money will be taken out of the Exchequer and scattered promiscuously, without any regard to who is going to get it ultimately; whether it is going to serve any purpose for the development of agriculture and the production of greater wealth from agriculture; or to the promises made to the farm servants, which everyone knows perfectly well can not be kept. The whole question of rating, including agricultural rating, has got to be reconsidered. The effect of this Bill and of the scattering of this money among these people will be to create interests and to increase rents, with the result that it will be more and more difficult to get back to a sound principle. The proposal of rating according to rent is obviously open to many objections, not only in the country but in the town, and will require careful consideration. How are you going to undo the mischief you are doing now, without injustice to many people, who may have acted on the faith of it? It is all very well to say that this Bill is only for a few years, but the Minister of Agriculture has stated that Measures of this kind are never gone back upon, and because interests will arise it will be impossible to put it right without injustice. For these reasons I strongly oppose an unlimited authority to grant money out of the Exchequer for purposes which are so wasteful—wasteful from the point of view of the Exchequer and of the industry of agriculture. The only thing that is certain—although the Minister of Agriculture professes to scoff at it, because it is so often repeated—is that the value of the estates and the interests of the landlords will be increased. It is absurd to say that a tenant does not take into account the amount of his burden when he tenders for a farm.
:The hon. Member is now discussing the Bill. He must keep to the point before us.
:On all these grounds, I say this is not the time to waste public money in the way in which it will be wasted. All these pretences as to the interests of the farm servants are a mere blind to disguise what really is going to happen. In times like these, to go on wasting money in this way, when it is so valuable and so much needed for agriculture, is a profound mistake. For these reasons I support the Amendment limiting the amount to a definite sum.
:I do not know whether the special grievances to which the hon. Member has referred are real or imaginary, but if they are imaginary that will make it more difficult to deal with them in a Bill, but I wish to say a word for the ancient Principality of Wales not only in regard to this Bill but in regard to matters generally. I wish particularly to draw attention to the point at this moment because repeated reference has been made to England and no reference has been made to Wales. That raises a very serious question. There is no part of the country which desires the sort of relief proposed in this Bill more than the poor agricultural districts of Wales. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that in future he must not refer only to England, because nowadays, with the spread of education, everybody has come to realise the important part which Wales plays in the life of this country. There was a time when most people would consider Wales to be a part of England, but that time has gone by. Personally I am not enamoured of the principle of the Bill any more than I was of the principle of the original Agricultural Rates Act, but the agricultural industry of the country has been hit very hard. For that reason I am not disposed to obstruct the passage of the Bill. But I do think that the Committee are entitled to ask the Government that this Measure shall be treated as a purely temporary Measure until the Government are in a position to produce a Bill dealing with rating generally which will put the whole rating system of the country on a practical basis. In the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill several hon. Members referred to the proposals of the Government as if they were a subsidy given to agriculture.
:The hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech on the Bill. He must confine himself to the Resolution before the Committee.
:I think that I am entitled to represent to the Minister that this Financial Resolution must not be taken as representing any satisfaction with the existing system on the part of the agricultural community.
:I hope that my hon. Friend will not withdraw his Amendment unless the Minister will state a specified sum. How can the House of Commons exercise control over finance if it passes a Resolution of this kind? Last night we had a more glaring example. The same Minister had the bland assurance to tell the House of Commons that he wanted it to vote no lees a sum than £100,000, but it might be any sum in the world. To-night he tells us that the amount will be probably £2,750,000. It is an insult to the House of Commons. I am, aware that we cannot carry this Amendment, and also those of us who do wish the Government well in their agricultural policy would not wish to deprive them of the money necessary to carry that policy into effect, but I do hope, unless the Minister is prepared to say what money he requires, that the Opposition will vote solidly for this Amendment.
:The Committee miss the presence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It is many years since I entered the House and never can I recall an occasion on which the right hon. Baronet did not protest against any Money Resolution in which the sum was not fixed. He is extraordinary sound in these things and he always laid it down as a fundamental principle that no Government Department should be given a blank cheque. I have frequently heard
him say that if a sum were not sufficient we should make it sufficient but have a fixed limit. He always took the stand which we should take now. We ought to refuse to pass this Resolution unless there is a fixed definite sum. The Prime Minister said recently that before he gave relief to the brewers he consulted them to know what they were going to do with the relief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] This is a precedent which I want to recommend to the Minister of Agriculture. The brewers pledged them selves that they would pass on the relief to those who consume beer. Has the Minister of Agriculture consulted the landlords to ascertain from them if they tributed among the agricultural labourers the relief which they will get—
:That question does not arise.
:Surely when we are voting a sum of money —
:The only question is whether the money is to be a fixed sum or whether the relief given should be in the form of a reduced assessment.
:What I suggest is that the sum should be fixed, and that it is for the Minister to ascertain how it is going to be used, and that it will be distributed among the agricultural labourers as well as the holders of land.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 65: Noes, 167.
Division No. 181.] AYES. [12.25 a.m. Ammon, Charles George Hardie, George D Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) Hayday, Arthur Potts, John S. Berkeley, Captain Reginald Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring; Burgess, S. Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh) Ritson, J. Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Herriotts, J. Saklatvala, S. Chapple, W. A. Hirst, G. H. Salter, Dr. A. Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy) Shakespeare, G. H. Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Jarrett, G. W. S. Sltch, Charles H. Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Stephen, Campbell Ede, James Chuter John, William (Rhondda, West) Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) Edge, Captain Sir William Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon) Warne, G. H. Entwistle, Major C. F. Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Fairbairn, R. R. Lawson, John James Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Falconer, J. Leach, W. Welsh, J. C. Foot, Isaac Lunn, William Whiteley, W. Gosling, Harry McCurdy. Rt. Hon. Charles A. Williams, David (Swansea, E.) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) McLaren, Andrew Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich) Gray, Frank (Oxford) Marshall, Sir Arthur H. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Grundy, T. W. Millar, J. D. TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Guthrie, Thomas Maule Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Mr. Vivian Phillipps and Major McKenzie Wood. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Grady, Captain James
NOES. Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Fraser, Major Sir Keith Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Ainsworth, Captain Charles Furness, G. J. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Galbraith, J. F. W. Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William Apsley, Lord Ganzoni, Sir John Paget, T. G. Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Garland, C. S. Parker, Owen (Kettering) Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Goff, Sir R. Park Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gould, James C. Pennefather, De Fonblanque Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Penny, Frederick George Barnett, Major Richard W. Greenwood, William (Stockport) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Barnston, Major Harry Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Plelou, D. P. Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. C. H. (Devizes) Gwynne, Rupert S. Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. Blades, Sir George Rowland Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Privett, F. J. Blundell, F. N. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Raine, W. Bonwick, A. Halstead, Major D. Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C. Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry Remer, J. R. Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Harvey, Major S. E. Reynolds, W. G. W. Brass, Captain W. Hawke, John Anthony Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) Brassey, Sir Leonard Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South) Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Henn, Sir Sydney H. Robertson Despencer, Major(lsl'gt'nW) Briggs, Harold Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Rogerson, Capt. J. E. Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Roundell, Colonel R. F. Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Hilder. Lieut.-Colonel Frank Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Bruford, R. Hiley, Sir Ernest Russell, William (Bolton) Buckingham, Sir H. Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney] Butcher, Sir John George Hopkins, John W. W. Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.) Houfton, John Plowright Sedon, Lori Butt, Sir Alfred Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Shepperson, E. W. Button, H. S. Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Shipwright, Captain D. Cadogan, Major Edward Hughes, Collingwood Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A. Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R. Hume. G. H. Singleton, J. E. Cautley, Henry Strother Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.) Skelton, A. N. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) Churchman, sir Arthur Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Steel, Major S. Strang Clayton, G. C. Kennedy, Captain M. s. Nigel Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips King, Captain Henry Douglas Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Cope, Major William Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Lamb, J. Q. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Curzon, Captain Viscount Lort-Williams, J. Titchfleld, Marquess of Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) Lougher, L. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Lynn, R. J. Tubbs, S. W. Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Turton, Edmund Russborough Dawson, Sir Philip McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) Dixon, C. H. (Rutland) Manville, Edward Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) Dudgeon, Major C. R. Margesson. H. D. R. Wells S R. Ednam, Viscount Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Mercer, Colonel H. Winterton, Earl Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Wise, Frederick Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) Wolmer, Viscount Falcon, Captain Michael Morrison-Bell. Major A. C. (Honiton) Woodcock, Colonel H. C. Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Murchison. C. K. Yerburgh, R. D. T. Fawkes, Major F. H. Nall, Major Joseph Fermor-Hesketh. Major T. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Flanagan, W. H. Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs. Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Guardianship of Infants Bill [Lords]
Ordered, "That Mr. Robert Murray be added to the Joint Committee."— [ Colonel Gibbs. ]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes before One o'Clock.