HC Deb 18 May 1911 vol 25 cc2163-5

Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,900,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals; of Out-Pensions; Rewards for Distinguished Services; Widows' Pensions; and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HUNT

I wish to ask a question on this Vote with regard to the pensions allowed to men who are discharged from the Army because they suffer from consumption or some other disease which they have contracted during their service. These men are sent down into the country with a pension of 6d. or 8d. a day, on which it is impossible for them to live, and the result is they reside in cottages and spread the disease amongst the people, I have had two or three bad cases in the county of Shropshire brought under my notice. I want to ask whether the new National Insurance Scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make better provision for these cases? I think these men are treated at the present time in a scandalous way. The War Office has no right to take the best years of a man's life and then, because he is suffering from some disease as the result of the exposure to which his military duties subject him, to throw him aside like an old coat and to send him back from whence he came with a very inadequate pension to do the best he can for himself. Either his friends or relatives have to keep him, or he has to go into the workhouse. That is the state of things which ought to be altered.

Mr. HOHLER

I want to call attention to an individual case which was laid before the Secretary of State for War in a question in this House in June, 1910, and has been the subject of subsequent correspondence. I have personally investigated the case, and, so far as I am able to form an opinion, this man has suffered a great injustice. He served in the East Yorkshire Regiment in India for about seven years, obtaining the rank of corporal. While in India he contracted rheumatism, and that was undoubtedly due to exposure to the monsoons. He was in bed for thirteen weeks in India. He then returned to this country, and he was invalided from Netley Hospital with a pension for twenty-one months of 10d. per day, the pension expiring in 1901. The man is eaten up with rheumatism. He is unable to do any work of any sort. Seeing that he was granted a pension to begin with in recognition of the fact that he had contracted the disease in the Service, I think his case deserves further consideration. The Secretary for War did cause inquiries to be made at Chelsea Hospital, and it was reported that the man was invalided for flat feet. Well, that is often a result of rheumatism. What I ask now is an undertaking that this case shall be again investigated, and if possible considered by an independent board of examiners. I do so because the man has nothing but the workhouse in front of him.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland)

I will give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member. I will make quite sure that this case is specially looked into. I do not know the particulars, but I believe the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital have the power to refer cases of this kind to an independent medical board, and if it is possible to do so in this case a fresh report shall certainly be obtained. With regard to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division of Shropshire (Mr. Hunt) I quite agree that it is very hard that a man who has served in the Army for the usual period of seven years, and who developes consumption during his service and is consequently discharged, receives so small a pension. Our Regulations are at present determined by the phrase "in and by"; "if any injury or disease has been contracted in and by the Service," we recognise that as qualifying for compensation or pension. It is a fact that very often perfectly fair medical boards decide that though a man has become consumptive, it is not specially attributable to his service, but quite apart from any hardship or exposure to which his service had subjected him. But the main point raised by the hon. Member is as to whether these cases will be differently dealt with when the National Insurance Bill is passed. I can answer that in the affirmative. Special provision is to be made for the case of soldiers discharged from the Army for diseases such as consumption, if and when it can be shown to be attributable to the Service.

Question put, and agreed to.