§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £1,562,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEI wish to refer to the case of the widows of the men 935 who are pensioners of the Royal Navy and have been employed in the dockyards. I think the point comes under this particular Vote. There are two cases I would like to bring to the notice of the Committee. One is the case of a woman which, for the purposes of illustration, I will call case A. She is a widow of a painter in the Royal Navy, and I brought her case to the notice of the Admiralty as far back as June, 1910. Owing to an error in the wording of the certificate of her husband's death, or, at any rate, owing to the certificate not being considered sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Admiralty, it was decided, without further reference to any doctor, that this man did not die of lead poisoning. The man's wife knew that he died of lead poisoning, and so did a number of other people, including a number of doctors, and yet the Admiralty did not consider it necessary to make inquiries. It was left to me to approach the Admiralty on behalf of this widow, and, with the evidence which she was able to supply to me, and other evidence I was able to obtain, I was able to satisfy the authorities and the Admiralty that this man had died of lead poisoning. Having done that, I had hoped that some compensation or some pension would have been awarded to the widow and her child, but such was not the case. The Admiralty thanked me for the services I had rendered them, but decided that, even allowing the man died from lead poisoning, the disease was not caused by "extraordinary exposure or exertion while on duty," and therefore the widow was not eligible for a pension from Admiralty funds. After a correspondence extending over some two years, a change came over the Admiralty with regard to this particular case. All I can imagine is that greater authority must have been placed in the hands of some particular official, and whoever applied his mind to the case did it with something like sympathy and common sense, with the result that on 20th March I received the following letter from the Admiralty:—
With reference to our previous correspondence in which you wrote for consideration of the claim for A, widow of an able painter whom we are now told died of lead poisoning,No reference is made to the fact that I hold in my hand a letter saying that I have satisfied the Admiralty authorities on that point.I am desired to acquaint you with the fact that936 This is a very important matter for these widows.the matter has been further considered,This is two years afterwards.and as a result it has been decided that deaths resulting from any certified industrial disease arising out of seamen's employment are to be treated as due to extreme exposure on duty within the meaning of the Regulation. The effect of this decision has been that A has been considered now eligible for a pension, and this decision has been communicated to her.That is a very interesting letter, a very polite letter, and a letter I was very pleased to receive, but I want to know how it came to pass that two and a half years elapsed after I had proved the case to the satisfaction of the Admiralty authorities before it was possible to give it favourable consideration. Secondly, there is the case of a woman, B. Her husband was also a naval pensioner, a skilled labourer in the Government dockyard. He worked there for sixteen years and died of paralysis. There was an inquest. A new doctor had been called in, and he could not take upon himself the responsibility of giving the primary cause of the paralysis. Meanwhile, I wrote again to the Admiralty, and I received the following reply:—In reply to your letter of the 9th ultimo relating to the question of the award of compensation to the widow of B, formerly a hired skilled labourer in Devonport Dockyard, I ant desired by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inform you that as no new medical evidence has been adduced, there are no grounds upon which the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury could be invited to modify then decision.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat does not arise on this Vote.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEShould I be in order, Mr. Chairman, in referring to any correspondence I have had with the Admiralty with regard to awarding some kind of pension to women and children of men who die in the dockyard?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat would come on Vote 15.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEThen I will pass to the question of Greenwich age pensions.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes, that would come on this Vote.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEThen at last we have got on firm ground. I do not suppose there is a single Member who has not in his constituency someone who is in receipt, or ought to be in receipt, of the Greenwich age pension. This pension amounts to something like 5d. a 937 day at the age of fifty-five, and an additional 4d. at the age of sixty-five. In 1865, when the Greenwich Hospital Act was passed, it was thought that 5,000 pensions costing £48,000 a year would be sufficient provision. In 1892 the men eligible became so numerous that the Government of the day—I think it was a Conservative Government—appointed a Select Committee of the House to consider whether steps could not be taken to provide for a larger number of pensions. The contribution from the Consolidated Fund had fallen from 20,000 to £4,000, and following on the suggestions of that Committee, an additional Grant of £22,400 was made from Naval Votes to the Greenwich Hospital Fund. This Grant brought up the actual total amount available for age pensions to £100,000, and that I think is the figure at which it stands to-day. I have not had the opportunity of ascertaining the exact number of pensioners now on the Greenwich Hospital Fund, but last year I was told it was 8,500, leaving about 3,500 eligible for the 5d., which they could not get owing to insufficiency of funds. I do not suppose that the numbers have gone down this year. I should imagine that hon. Members who have had anything to do with Greenwich age pensioners will agree with me that the numbers have gone up.
Why is there a deficiency? I have already dealt with the question of the contribution from the Consolidated Fund, but there is another matter. In 1870 the Seaman's Pensioner Reserve was started, and, as an inducement to the men to take their drills in the Reserve, the Government of the day promised them pensions at fifty instead of fifty-five. This arrangement continued until 1892, and then a change was introduced. While the Reserve men were still to obtain their pensions at fifty, the money for the years between fifty and fifty-five was to come out of Naval Funds. On the men reaching fifty-five the liability was again transferred to Greenwich Funds. A further change was made in April, 1910, when the transfer was deferred until the men would obtain the award of a Greenwich age pension in the ordinary course of events. I admit this makes a substantial difference but it does not alter the fact that from 1870 to 1892 the Admiralty financed the Reserve pensions between the ages of fifty and fifty-five out of Greenwich Funds, and for the whole period between 1870 and 1910, when occasion required, Green- 938 wich Funds had also to bear the cost of the years between fifty and fifty-five, fifty-five being the age at which a pensioner obtains his award in the ordinary course of events. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether he does not think the time has arrived when these moneys, which were wrongfully taken from that fund should be refunded from the Naval Votes? I am sure he is very sympathetic in the matter, but I should like to know whether it is not possible to try and recover some of the lost ground.
There is a sum of £2,500 allocated for augmentation of Greenwich Hospital pensions to the widows of seamen and marines whose deaths are attributable to the Service, but not to warlike operations. That is the only money paid out of Naval Funds for this purpose, the remaining sum required to meet the widows' pensions, amounting to something like £6,000 a year, coming out of the Greenwich Fund. There is, therefore, a drain upon the Greenwich Fund for matters entirely foreign to the idea when the fund was first started. I find that if these two sums were placed upon the Naval Funds it would be possible to give 780 more men the 5d., and something like 600 more men the 4d. This is not the only drain upon the fund. I think I am right in saying that when a ship goes down in time of peace the pensions for the widows come out of Greenwich Funds. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider these points and to endeavour, if possible, to make some further contribution out of Naval Funds towards the Greenwich Hospital Fund, in order that more of these men may be able to get the small pension for which they are eligible instead of having to wait until they are sixty-two or sixty-three years of age before they can get it. Some of these men are in very poor circumstances. They often have to keep a very old wife, and I know cases where they have to support children who are either lame or blind. I know that the Greenwich Hospital authorities take all these questions into consideration and are very fair about them, but they say they have not got enough money. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that these men should go about in a state of penury, some of them almost being brought to the workhouse, when a few thousand pounds a year coming out of Naval Votes would prevent such consequences? I venture to 939 make an appeal to the Financial Secretary to consider the proposition I have put before him.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. FALLEI want to refer to the pensions of warrant officers in the Coastguards. The right hon. Gentlemen will be aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the Coastguard service. The men of that service think that they should be treated on the same footing as their comrades afloat. I especially want to refer to the pensions of the chief petty officers. The average pay of the petty officer is £64 and that of the chief officer £128, or exactly double. But in the matter of pension there is only a difference of about £13, and it seems exceedingly unfair that when a man's pay is exactly double that of another man his pension should only be 13 per cent. in excess of that other man's pension. That is one of the mysteries which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain, although I very much doubt if he can. Next I come to a question affecting the widows of warrant officers. I admit not being able to thoroughly understand the Regulations on this point. If a man is retired or discharged from the Service after a court martial his widow is not entitled to any pension whatsoever. I maintain that the Regulations do not make that clear, and that they should be amended so that these men should know that if, as warrant officers, they misconduct themselves in such a way as to be tried by court martial, their widows will absolutely lose the pension to which otherwise they would be entitled. The matter has come before me recently in several cases. Men have been discharged or retired from the Service on pension, often of a very considerable amount, and their widows have found, greatly to their surprise, that they are entitled to nothing whatever. Then with regard to the cases of the children of seamen and Marines whose death is attributable to warlike operations. There were under this item nineteen cases last year and twenty-three this year, and the increase in the Estimate is only £20. Does that mean that these three children between them are only going to benefit to the extent of £20 in one year?
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo. The increase represents the net estimated increase for the current year.
§ Sir J. D. REESI apprehend that the explanation the right hon. Gentleman gave me on the last Vote regarding Appropriations-in-Aid applies equally to this Vote. Here is an item: "Proportion of Contribution of the Government of India on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters, £4,300." That is the same sum as last year. Is it not the case that for many years the British Navy has been represented in East Indian waters by a second-class cruiser hardly deserving of the high-sounding name she bears, the "Highflyer"? Has not that second-class cruiser been replaced by a first-class cruiser, and, if that is the case, ought not the contribution to be proportionately raised? I only mention this because it seems to me that the entries of these items are somewhat of the nature of wooden repetitions. Take another item. I cannot understand why the same sum now proposed to be voted for ships engaged in the suppression of the arms traffic should be the same as was voted last year. Does the Board of Admiralty anticipate that these operations will annually recur and be of the same extent? I apprehend that that is by no means the case. On the contrary, I gather they are of an altogether exceptional, spasmodic, and fragmentary character. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain why the same sum is put down for this year as for last year? Then I come to Vote 13 for "Half Pay and Retired Pay". Vote 14 is "On Account of Naval and Marine Pensions." What is the difference between retired pay and pensions? I shall probably be told that Vote 13 refers to officers and Vote 14 chiefly to seamen and marines; but that does not cover the ground, because out of the £1,400,000 in the present Vote no less than £1,297,000 appears under the heading of "Pensions and Gratuities to Seamen and Marines." There is also on Vote 14 a repetition of an entry of £5,025 for pensions to retired naval officers.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIt is not a repetition.
§ Sir J. D. REESThe provision this year under that heading is the same as that made last year. That is all I wanted to convey. My point is, that to the uninstructed stranger, who is endeavouring to find his way about this bulky volume it is a matter of wonder what is the difference between retired pay and pensions, and, although he may think that one refers 941 to officers and the other to men, that does not altogether cover the case. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give a few words of explanation on the point.
§ Dr MACNAMARAThere have been several points raised to which I wish to say a few words in reply. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) raised the question of the grant in the case of a sailor and not under the Workmen's Compensation Act, who, in his avocation, contracted lead poisoning and died there-from. There is no provision in the Regulations for the widow in such a case as that, as it could not be said that death was caused by exposure when on duty. The Admiralty, when the matter was first brought forward, took the view that it would not be fair to admit that the death of the man was due to extraordinary exposure, but, the case being represented a second time, it was decided, after very careful reflection, that it should be treated as a case of death from industrial disease, and it was so treated accordingly, and a grant made.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEThe point I made was that it was left to myself to prove the case. The man had died from lead poisoning, and the Admiralty ought to have obtained the information themselves instead of leaving it to others to do it.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am not going to quarrel with the hon. Member as to the responsibility for this matter. The fact remains that assistance has been given to the widow. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the administration of the Greenwich Hospital funds. Now the income of Greenwich Hospital is a little over £200,000, and the total expenditure for the current year is estimated at £199,000. It is worth noting what the items of expenditure are, so that hon. Gentlemen may see exactly where the money goes. We propose to spend on account of the Northern and Greenwich estates £7,300. The administration by the Admiralty will cost £4,300, and this, be it remembered, is on an income of £200,000. The legal and surveying charges are estimated to cost £850; the expenditure on the painted hall, chapel and cemetery, and superannuation allowances, £1,500. The pensions to officers, with contributions for the education of children, £9,200. The hos- 942 pital pensions for seamen and marines, and pensions to widows, and grants for the education of children, £143,450; and the expenditure on the hospital school, in which there are 1,000 children, £32,400; thus giving a total estimated expenditure of £199,000. The sum of £100,900 provided since 1897–8 for Greenwich Hospital age pensions of 5d. and 9d. a day will this year be increased by £6,100, thus bringing the total amount provided for age pensions up to £107,000. The increase of £6,100 will enable us to grant about 800 additional pensions as from the 1st April last. The sum at our disposal will provide for 3,837 pensions at 5d. per day, and 5,691 pensions at 9d. per day. It must be remembered that every one of these men has a naval life pension to begin with, and that fact is constantly overlooked by those who criticise the administration of this fund. The pension is only an augmentation of the naval life pension. The chief petty officers have a life pension roughly ranging from £43 to £53 a year.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDAnd they earn it.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI should be the last man to deny that. The life pension of the petty officer runs from £32 to £42, and that of the able seaman is about £18. The Greenwich Hospital pension is an augmentation of that. In addition to that we have a sum of £23,000 set apart for the award of Greenwich Hospital special pensions—that is, pensions to men the majority of whom have not qualified for naval life pensions. To these men temporary provision is granted, varying from 6d. to 1s. 6d. per day, according to circumstances. Up to 1st April, 1892, the age at which men of the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve came on the Greenwich Hospital Funds was fifty. From 1st April, 1892, to 1st April, 1910, the charge was borne by Navy Votes between the ages of fifty and fifty-five and then transferred to the Greenwich Hospital Fund. We have already made another change. From 1st April, 1910, we have kept these Reserve men on the Navy Votes up to the age at which they would probably otherwise have come on the Greenwich Hospital Fund. The average age at which these men come on the Greenwich Hospital Fund now is about fifty-nine. When I first went to the Admiralty it was about sixty-four, that was about five years ago.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKEWill the right hon. Gentleman say when the Admiralty made it fifty-nine? During the last three years, since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been frequently told by the Admiralty that the age is sixty-two. Therefore it could only have become fifty-nine during the last few months.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe small dispensations we have been able to make in one way or anther makes it true to say that at the present time the average age of the pensioners who, by their circumstances, are eligible as candidates for getting upon the Greenwich Fund is about fifty-nine. The interruption enforces that point. In former years it was sixty-three, then it was sixty-two, and now it is about fifty-nine. The administration of the Admiralty with regard to this matter is perfectly simple. We take those naval pensioners who are, from their age and their circumstances, the most necessitous, and those who have the smallest means, and dispense these augmentations until the money is gone. I have the most complete confidence in the way that those responsible for the administration of this fund carry out their work. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) as to the service on the Persian Gulf, he asks why we have the same proportion of Appropriation-in-Aid each year, and why we do not vary it to a nicety. There may be something in that point. We dispense these Appropriations-in-Aid so far as we can in accordance with the services for which the Grant is made. If the hon. Member thinks the Appropriation-in-Aid upon this particular Vote 14 ought to be modified because of the displacement of a particular ship engaged in the Persian Gulf, I will look into it. But to adopt his suggestion would certainly be dispensing Appropriations-in-Aid with a meticulous nicety.
§ Sir J. D. REESThat would be a perfectly fair answer as regards service in the Persian Gulf, but it would not cover the case of the substitution of a first-class cruiser for a second-class cruiser, the "Highflyer," in East Indian waters.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAAll I can say is that we are entitled fully and equitably to carry to this Vote a share of the Appropriation-in-Aid which represents the character of the service. The hon. Member said that we have, under Vote 13, Retired Pay, and under Vote 14, Pensions, 944 and he asks what it means, and what is the difference between retired pay and pensions. Retired pay is given to all officers, while pensions are given for meritorious conduct, and there are also special pensions in necessitous cases.
§ Sir J. D. REESThere are enormous amounts for pensions. How can that be if they are all of a special character?
§ Dr. MACNAMARANot all of them; only some of them.
§ Mr. FALLEWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my question with regard: to the Coastguards? A chief petty officer receives £64 a year and a chief officer £128 a year, but when they are pensioned they receive exactly the same pension, with practically only 13 per cent. difference. Why does that practice obtain, and why should a man who receives £64 a year get as much pension as the man who receives £128 a year?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI confess I do not quite follow the point. If the hon. Member will put a question to me, I will look into the matter. The whole thing is done under Admiralty Regulations.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWith regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid, I understand that a first-class cruiser has been substituted for a second-class cruiser. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not want to treat these Appropriations-in-Aid in too close a manner, and that if there is a little larger service rendered he is prepared to take the same amount of money. That is hardly a businesslike way to do it. The proper way would be to obtain the proper sum for the services rendered.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWe do that.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIf there has been the substitution of a superior ship for an inferior ship, surely the Indian Government, or whatever Colonial Government is responsible, should pay an increased sum in proportion to the cost of the ship and its maintenance! Am I right in thinking that that has not always been the practice of the Admiralty?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI think there is some misunderstanding. This is not a question of the cost of service. That we must 945 charge. We then dispense it as an Appropriation-in-Aid. The point raised by the hon. Member is whether we are entitled to dispose, under particular Votes, of certain amounts of that Appropriation-in-Aid. Having got the £64,000, the hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) asked whether we were entitled to allocate that amount under this Vote, because the service is not quite the same as it was before.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThen the question was under which item it should go?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDI do not want the Committee to think that these old veterans and servants of the State are very generously treated. I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is going in the right direction. I think he is going to give 800 men 5d. and 900 4d.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAOh, no; the total addition, as a result of the £6,100, will be 800 altogether.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDThat is a distinct improvement, and on behalf of the men I thank the right hon. Gentleman for it. But he must remember that there are about 3,500 of them still left. If we examine the origin of the Greenwich Pension Fund, we find that 136,000 men each paid at that time 6d. a month. It has never been known to what sum the fund amounted. It went up to either £2,000,000 or £8,000,000. I have often stated in the House that the men were robbed of that money, and that we should go on fighting to get every one of these men paid 5d. at fifty-five and 9d. at sixty-five. The State took that money; the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. Nobody knows whether it was £2,000,000 or£8,000,000, but it all came out of the men's pockets at the rate, of 6d. per month. Those of us who have taken up the question of the. Greenwich Hospital pensions are justified in doing all we can to give every one of these men at the age, at which they have arrived the augmentation of the pension they have earned. The right hon. Gentleman has always been sympathetic upon this point, and we hope that next year he will increase the number of men to whom these pensions are fairly due. Do not let the Committee run away with the idea that these men are liberally treated, for they were originally robbed of these sixpences for pensions.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe deductions to which the Noble Lord refers ceased in 1834.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDI know; but that does not make any difference. The actual sum ought to have been there, but it was taken by the State, and the men have suffered from that day to this, because they have not received the pensions they expected at the age of fifty-five or sixty-five. However, the right hon. Gentleman is sympathetic, and I am grateful to him for that. I hope that next year he will put more men upon Navy Votes and release the Greenwich funds, so that these worthy old veterans shall get the pensions due to them.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will approach the authorities with the idea of getting more money for the Greenwich Fund from Naval Funds?
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo, I can hardly give that undertaking. What I said I would do was to keep the Greenwich Pensioners' Reserve on the Navy Funds up to the age of fifty-nine. Afterwards they would become eligible for the Greenwich Hospital Fund.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLI desire to raise a point under sub-head H, "Pensions to Widows of Naval Officers." I have here an actual case, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not mention the name, although I shall be glad to give it to him. It is the case of the widow of a commander in the Navy, who is in receipt of a pension of £80 a year, which is her sole means of subsistence. In 1909 it was decided to deduct Income Tax at the rate of is. 2d. in the £ from the full pension of those widows who were residing abroad for no other reason than the benefit of their health. For two years the Paymaster-General did not deduct this amount, hoping that the order might be cancelled, but eventually they were told to collect the whole amount, and the lady in question had to pay £9 6s. 8d. for the arrears during the two years, and ever since she has had to pay 21 3s. 4d. a quarter, which has been deducted from her pension. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter. The lady in question is suffering from honesty. She had to fill up her papers, and she might have said that she was residing abroad owing to reasons 947 of ill-health, but she said she was residing abroad for reasons of economy. That is a very good example of the well-known fact, admitted by all except the more pureblooded Cobdenites, that it is cheaper to live in protected countries. It is a monstrous thing to ask the widow of any officer of the Army or Navy why she is living abroad, so long as she is living in a decent way—it is nothing to do with the Admiralty—to say nothing of deducting at one fell swoop one-eighth of her total income and deducting the 1s. 2d. from what might be humourously described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as unearned increment, her very small pension of £80 a year. Over a year ago, during the Debate on the Income Tax, I asked the help of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He waived it aside in rather an airy way, and said it would cost the Exchequer some thousands of pounds. I am at a loss to know how this could possibly happen, because the pension of officers is not a very great amount, and surely a difference of 2d. in the case of widows who happen to be living abroad would be a very small matter indeed in the consideration of the Treasury. I tried the Chancellor of the Exchequer and failed, and now I ask the Admiralty to help me in this. They have been very good during the last two or three years about reforms in the way of helping officers and men of all classes in the Navy, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing would be more appreciated in the Service than the knowledge that fair provision will be made for those they may have to leave behind and are now responsible for, and I hope the Admiralty may take this case up and really make a move. It has been going on for four years, and I have obtained no satisfaction out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWhat the hon. Gentleman raises is, of course, strictly speaking, outside the scope of the Vote, and is a matter for the Inland Revenue, but if he thinks it is fair, just, and reasonable, that we should make representations, I will carefully consider any representation he may make, and see whether it would be right and fair to place it before the proper authorities. We are not the proper authorities, but it would be our duty, if we thought justice was not being done, to make representations. Whether this is a case where that should be done I cannot say.
§ Question put, and agreed to.