HC Deb 21 November 1911 vol 31 cc1156-62
Earl WINTERTON

I desire to raise a question with reference to the administration of the Territorial Force. During the annual training, last August, of the 1st Home Counties Army Service Corps a non-commissioned officer, named Holman, a squadron sergeant-major, was severely injured in the course of the annual regimental sports. His horse slipped up, and he fell and fractured his collar bone and his ribs and also dislocated his shoulder. Although these facts may not of themselves seem of sufficient importance to justify raising the matter on the Motion for Adjournment, a point of extreme importance is involved, and the discussion of it has disclosed the existence of a feeling of alarm among the Territorial Forces in the South of England which should if possible be at once allayed. This unfortunate man was removed to the hospital at Brighton, and owing to a grave mistake on the part of the medical officer in charge of the camp he did not arrive there until seven hours after the accident had occurred, the consequence being that his original injuries were intensified. He is still incapacitated from pursuing his occupation as a cartage contractor, and has been absolutely unable to do any work since August last. The officer commanding the unit wrote to the general commanding the Territorial Division requesting that some compensation might be paid to the man, but the general decided that as the accident had not occurred in the course of the man's military duties he could not forward the application to the War Office. The matter was then brought before the Territorial Association, and there a strong resolution was unanimously passed in favour of an appeal to the War Office to make some alteration in the Regulations. I have called at the War Office, and I have made myself acquainted with the Regulations.

I believe that technically it is the case that a man injured during the regimental sports is not injured in the course of his duties. But on the other hand a man by entering for the regimental sports is thereby making himself more efficient in his military duties, and it is the custom of the authorities to encourage men in every way to join in the sports. As showing the importance, which the military authorities attach to the sports, I would point out that one of the most valuable days allotted for the annual training of the force is given up to the sports. This man was requested by his regimental sergeant-major to enter the sports on this occasion, and the result is not only has he ever since been incapacitated from working, but he may be an invalid for the rest of his life. The case has aroused considerable interest in Sussex. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe I am sincere when I say, as a supporter of the National Service League, we would be very sorry to see anything done by the War Office calculated in any way to discourage recruiting in that county. I am authorised by many of my colleagues to say that they feel great harm is being done in Sussex, and indeed throughout the country, by the refusal of the authorities to compensate this man. I fully admit, as I have said, that technically the authorities are right in interpreting the Regulations in the way they have done, but I do at the same time urge that when men give up their time, and are also in many cases considerably out of pocket, by reason of the service they are rendering their country by joining the Territorials the War Office should not claim immunity from paying compensation on what really is, after all, only a technical point. While I do not know whether it would be possible to pay this man any compensation, I hope the right hon. Gentleman representing the War Office will say whether something cannot be done in that direction. I hope that they will amend the Regulations so that, in future, accidents of this kind will be brought within the definition of an accident in the course of military duties. This matter has been prominently brought forward in Sussex by a gentleman who is a working trade unionist, who represents the working-class interest on the association, and he has authorised me to say that he feels disinclined to continue his membership of the association, as do many of his colleagues, unless something is done in the matter. I hope the Under-Secretary for War will give the matter further consideration, and that he will be able to tell the House that the Regulations will be altered, and that justice will be done to this unfortunate man.

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

I make no complaint that the Noble Lord should have raised this question, because it gives me an opportunity of informing him and the House of the action the War Office are engaged in taking. The Noble Lord said the compensation was refused upon a technical ground. It is obvious that in cases of this kind we must be guided by Regulations. The Noble Lord would be the first to admit that the accident, which we all deplore, was an accident which did not arise out of the military duties of this man. There may be much to be said in favour of the appeal he has made that men who are engaged in this kind of military sport should, if unfortunately they be injured, receive compensation for their injuries. At any rate, he does not deny that the actual injury did not arise in and through the performance of military duty. I am glad to have the opportunity of informing the House that the War Office are engaged in seriously considering whether there should be an alteration of these rules. It is obviously impossible for me, while that matter is sub judice and is being considered by the Army Council, to inform the Noble Lord what the alterations will be. The whole question, not of this isolated individual case, but the whole general question of what amendment of the Regulations is required, is now undergoing consideration, and therefore I am sorry that I am not able to inform the Noble Lord whether this particular case will receive treatment or not. Of course, any alteration that is made in the Regulations could not be made retrospective. That does not mean that I should not give favourable consideration to any representation the Noble Lord might make on behalf of this man. I regret that the man did not receive the medical treatment it was desirable that he should receive immediately after the accident. That was not the fault of the military authorities. It was, if I may say so, the fault of the civil authorities. I trust the House will feel that this matter is engaging very earnest and serious consideration. I hope to be able to announce the decision that has been arrived at very shortly.

Viscount HELMSLEY

The hon. Gentleman's answer is only satisfactory as far as it goes, because it seems to me that the War Office have put leather a narrow interpretation on the Regulations. I do not know whether it would be upheld that an accident sustained in this way has arisen in the course of military duty. Supposing these sports were taking place at the same time that ordinary parades and field days were taking place. Sports, as such may perhaps not be military duty, but they approximate to it, and if they are held in lieu of military duty, strictly denned, because it is supposed they are an efficient form of training, it seems to me it may very well be argued, and probably sustained in a court of law, that the accident has been sustained in the course of military duty, and if it is not so, it would have been more satisfactory if we had heard from the War Office directly that they intended to make it so because I can testify to the importance and value of such sports to the training of the Yeomanry. The War Office would have been far wiser to have put a more broad-minded and less red tape interpretation on the Regulations. If it is not possible to make any alteration of the Regulations retrospective, surely the hon. Gentleman could undertake in this case to make use of some compassionate allowance.

Mr. BARNES

I should like to associate myself with the Noble Lord in wishing to see some alteration of the Regulations which would bring this case under favourable consideration. At first I was disposed not to agree, because it occurred to me that this man was injured outside his military duties, and a workman injured outside the terms of his employment would get no compensation, but when I thought further it seemed to me that the two things were not the same. After all, this man has gone to the annual training and he is technically within the terms of his service. I hope therefore in the future a man injured in this way will get compensation. I do not care twopence whether this man was a trade unionist or not. I am only, actuated by the desire to see justice done. I want the Territorial Service to succeed and it will not succeed unless every encouragement is given to men to come forward in the full knowledge that they will have sympathetic consideration given to them in the event of their being injured.

Colonel YATE

May I say a word in support of what has been said by my Noble Friend. I cannot understand how it can be argued that this man did not suffer the injuries while on duty when we look at the terms on which the Yeomanry are called out for a fortnight in the year. They are taught exercises for fourteen days, and on the fifteenth day they are paraded in order to test who is the best man. I do not think we can say there is any question that the man was hurt on duty. I hope the matter will receive favourable consideration.

Mr. COURTHOPE

My only excuse fox taking part in the discussion is that I am a Territorial officer in Sussex. I know from the Territorial officers in that county that recruiting is practically at a standstill. It is impossible for me to say what amount of truth there is in the statement that the event which (my Noble Friend has described is a matter which has to do with it. It seems to me almost incredible that recruiting should have been affected to this extent by an individual matter of that kind, but that is the report which reaches me from the best sources of information which I have at my disposal. I think that puts a different complexion on the case, and I would appeal to the Under-Secretary for War as one who is keenly desirous of helping the Territorial Force forward to give this case his careful consideration. I do not care whether the man has any claim or not. I do not care whether he was performing his duty or merely enjoying himself, but I do say that as long as you ask men to come forward voluntarily and submit to the disadvantages which they have to face in competition with those who do not come up for a fortnight each year for this training you must expect to make some relaxation of the Regulations if you are to keep up the strength of the recruiting. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at the matter in this light, and try not only to make the Regulations more elastic, but to deal with the case in the interest of the men who suffer injuries in the Territorial Force.

Lord EDMUND TALBOT

I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot give a definite answer to the question put by my hon. Friend—namely, whether the War Office has or has not power over certain funds out of which compensation could be given quite apart from anything contained in the Regulations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)

This is a financial question, and I feel bound to say that my hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) has dealt with it very adequately in his reply. I have been asked a definite question as to what is the difference between the case of this man and the case of other men in respect of the payment of damages for injuries sustained on military duty? The answer is quite clear. Under the Regulations you cannot grant compensation for accidents caused when men are engaged in sports, and the reason for that is that all other strictly military duties, as the House knows, are compulsory, whereas these sports are of course purely voluntary. It is quite true that they are very useful in teaching a man his business, and it is just for that reason that my hon. Friend has announced to the House that the War Office is carefully considering whether a man injured under these circumstances should not be brought within the scope of compensation. There must always be a difference, because in the one case what is done is compulsory, and in the other case voluntary. The War Office is considering the matter, and, subject to the Treasury sanction, my hon. Friend hopes to introduce a scheme which will bring cases of this kind within the scope of compensation. As to this particular man, the hon. Member opposite asked whether, although the operation of any new arrangement cannot be made retrospective, he will get some consideration and compensation. I would only remind the House that my hon. Friend said that he would give the most favourable consideration so far as it was in his power to any representation made on behalf of this man, and I know that should he be able to amend the Regulations my hon. Friend will be in a position to make some compensation at any rate to this man for the unfortunate accident to which he was subjected. I hope that the House will be satisfied with the explanation I have given. Our only desire is to see justice done in accordance with the Regulations which we have, and any Amendment that it may be possible to make.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.