CLAUSE 3.—(Functions of Statutory Committee.) (Hansard, 6 July 1915)

HC Deb 06 July 1915 vol 73 cc310-38 310

§ (1) The functions of the statutory Committee shall be:—

(a) to decide any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant, other than a widow or child, may depend;
(b) to frame a scale of supplementary grants in cases where owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the pension or grant or separation allowance payable out of public funds seems to the committee to be inadequate;
(c) out of funds at their disposal, to supplement pensions and grants and separation allowance payable out of public funds, so, however, that no such supplementary grant shall be made except in accordance with such scale as aforesaid;
(d) out of funds at their disposal, to make grants in cases where no separation allowances or pensions are payable out of public funds;
(e) to decide, in any particular case, whether any pension or grant or separation allowance has, under the regulations subject to which it was granted, become forfeited;
(f) to decide, as between two or more claimants to any pension or grant or separation allowance, which, if any, of the claimants is entitled thereto;
(g) to determine any other questions in relation to pensions or grants or separation allowances which may be referred to the committee by the Admiralty or Army Council;
(h) to administer any funds which may be placed at the disposal of the committee by the corporation or by local committees or by any society or other organisation having funds applicable to the making of grants 311 of the nature of those which the committee are authorised to make, or otherwise;
(i) to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment.

§ (2) The statutory Committee may refer to any local committee for their consideration and advice any question pending before the statutory Committee, and may request any local committee to collect and furnish them with any information they may require with respect to any matter, and may delegate to any local committee the distribution within their area of any grants made by the statutory Committee, and may pay or contribute towards the payment of the expenses incurred by the local committee in respect of any of the matters aforesaid.

§ (3) Paragraphs (8), (9), (10), and (11), of the First Schedule to the Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903 (relating to funds, accounts and audit), shall apply in respect of the statutory Committee in like manner as they apply in respect of the Corporation.

§ (4) The statutory Committee shall in each year make a report of their proceedings which shall be included in the annual report made by the Corporation to His Majesty.

§ Mr. HOHLER
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "be" ["The functions of the Statutory Committee shall be"], to insert the Words: "To deside by way of appeal from the Admiralty or War Office whether any officer, sailor, marine, or soldier, widow, child, or dependant is entitled to any and what pension, grant, or separation allowance under the warrant, order, or regulation made by the Admiralty or War Office to give effect to the report of the Pensions Committee."
We now come to a very important part of this measure in regard to the functions of the statutory Committee. In my judgment they are far too limited. Of course, I realise that the supplementary scales are entirely a matter within their own province, but the object of my Amendment is to confer upon the statutory Committee real powers in regard to the grant of pensions by the State. I fully appreciate the argument of those who say that these pensions ought to be controlled by the State, but after a great crisis such as that through which we are going, the question 312 as to who are entitled to payment on the terms of the regulation made by the Admiralty ought to be decided by the statutory Committee. At present the power which it is proposed to give them is of a limited character. They have no power to decide as between the Crown and the subject, whether the subject is entitled to a pension or not. That remains wholly in the discretion of the Department, either the Admiralty or the War Office, administering the pay warrants from the Crown. The only powers given are under paragraph (a): To decide any question or fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant other than a widow or child may depend. In other words, it would be left to the uncontrolled discretion of the Admiralty or the War Office without any appeal to say in the first instance that A B is entitled to a pension, and then it may be that a question of fact will arise as to the amount' of the pension.
I have not myself seen these pension warrants or regulations issued by the Admiralty to give effect to the pension scheme. I assume that there will probably be a different scale, say in regard to dependants. This only deals with dependants, because the widow and children are exempt from all jurisdiction by the statutory Committee. I suppose that when these pay warrants are presented to Parliament we shall find there is some scale set up, a different scale we will say for a mother, a father, and a sister. All that the statutory Committee will have to decide, as between the Crown and the subject, is the amount of the pension to which the dependent is entitled. The only other function which it is proposed to confer upon the Committee is in paragraph (f)— To decide as between two or more claimants to a pension or grant or separation allowance, which if any of the claimants is entitled thereto. Therefore, in every case the right to a pension depends solely on the Crown. I propose to confer a greater power on the statutory Committee. I submit that it should have this power conferred upon it as an independent body, independent of the Crown and of those who are administering these great Departments, and that, if a pension has been refused, it 313 should be granted by way of appeal if in the opinion of the committee it has been improperly refused.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster)
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend is not going to press this. The suggestion which he has made was never any part of the proposals of the Select Committee which this Bill was intended to carry out. If this proposal were passed as it stands on the Paper it would give an appeal to the statutory Committee in respect of pensions, allowances, and grants fixed by the Royal Warrant. This was never intended by the Select Committee. I do not think that it was intended by the House, and I do not think it was intended by my hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that that would be the result, and I hope, under the circumstances, that he will not press his Amendment.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
The Amendment is not the same Amendment as that which I put down almost immediately afterwards, but it raises almost the same question, and I may be allowed to make my remarks now and thus avoid making them later on. I share the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend that the limitation in paragraph (a) with regard to the question of pensions to dependants is far too strict. The proposal in this Bill is that the ascertainment of the facts alone is to be left to this particular Committee. The decision as to the amount will remain, as I understand, with the War Office and with the Admiralty. The Admiralty up to the present have settled it themselves, but the War Office have found enormous complexity in regard to the soldiers. In my opinion the decision of the amount of pensions to be given amongst dependants is a matter much better left to the statutory Committee. I do not quite know why the War Office or the Admiralty are much concerned about this question; it is a question of what pensions are to be allowed to widows and children in the country by reason of the death of men from whom they obtained some measure of support, and I should think that those who have lost relatives by this War would have their case very much better dealt with by the statutory Committee.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I agree with a great deal of what my right hon. Friend says, but I think the proposal which he has on the Paper very much better raises this 314 question than does the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
If I am free to move my Amendment later, I will not pursue my observations further.

§ Mr. FORSTER
On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether my right hon. Friend who has an Amendment lower down on the Paper raising this question would not be prejudiced if my hon. and learned Friend withdraws the Amendment which is before the Committee?

§ Sir R. ADKINS
Would it be possible, if this Amendment is withdrawn, to discuss the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, empowering the statutory Committee to hear appeals in respect both of pensions and allowances—appeals, that is to say, from decisions of pension officers and local pension committees. Some of us want to raise, in whatever form is most convenient, and which will take up the least amount of time, the question whether this statutory Committee ought not to be the final Court of Appeal, even in individual cases, under proper regulations. We want to raise that question some time during the Committee stage.

§ Mr. HOHLER
From what the Financial Secretary for War has said with regard to my Amendment, I gather that he thinks it would overrule the order and regulation made by the Admiralty or War Office. As I read it, that is not my Amendment at all; my Amendment is that the statutory Committee should decide by way of appeal from the Admiralty or War Office "whether any officer, sailor, marine, or soldier, widow, child, or dependant is entitled to any and what pension, grant, or separation allowance under the warrant, order, or regulation made by the Admiralty or War Office to give effect to the report of the pensions committee." Therefore it will be found that I use that phrase, "order or regulation." The jurisdiction which is given the Committee does not enable them to overrule the Admiralty or the War Office except by appeal, but upon the terms of the warrant. It is simply and solely to decide whether or not the pension had been properly or improperly refused. It is the same thing in regard to allowances. I understand that is an exceedingly important point. As I understand, one of the objects of the Bill and what the House desires is that there should be some tribunal independent of the Department to 315 decide the rights between the Crown and the subject. You should have co-ordination and system so as to bring the people into line, so that A may not suffer as against B or vice versâ.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
On the point of Order which was raised by the right hon. Member for St. Pancras in regard to his Amendment, and on the point whether the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not a better method of dealing with the whole question than that of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, I have to point out that I certainly think it is. It raises a wider issue because the scale and regulations have to be laid upon the Table of the House at a certain date, and all sorts of subjects will be introduced for debate, and, if approved, adopted. Of course the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chatham raises this specific question of appeal, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman withdrawn his Amendment, a course which I respectfully suggest, he might save time and enable the Committee to discuss the wider issue.

§ Mr. HOHLER
If I could get anybody to divide with me, I should not withdraw my Amendment. I would rather have it negatived, for I feel very strongly on this Bill, which I do not like at all. I want some authority to decide between the Crown and the subject.

§ Mr. DUKE
My hon. and learned Friend represents a large constituency interested in this matter, and I think it is well worthy of his consideration whether it is not more advantageous to the class of people for whom he speaks to have to deal with a responsible Government rather than to have to deal with a committee.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
On the point of Order. If this Amendment of the hon. Member opposite is negatived, will it still be open to my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras to move his Amendment?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I would not shut out the Amendment of the right hon. Member for St. Pancras, because it seems to me, in regard to the general convenience of the Committee, that the issue which it raises is too wide a one for me to take a narrow view.

§ Mr. HOHLER
In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

316

§ Mr. HOGGE
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "be" ["committee shall be"], to insert the words, "among other relevant matters."
The object of my putting down this Amendment is to ask my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench whether it is absolutely wise to insert in the Clause what the precise functions of the statutory Committee shall be, or should there be some words which will allow it to go further than the specific duties with which we are concerned? I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether the wording of the whole of this Clause 3 commits them to those duties and those duties only, and whether in that case my words would be ruled out?

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I scarcely think that these words are necessary. Under the Sub-section I imagine that the statutory Committee would deal with the terms of that Sub-section itself, or with anything relevant to them. I do not think it is necessary to add those general words.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
I beg to move, in Sub-section 1 (a), to leave out the words "any question of fact on the determination of which," and to insert instead thereof the words, "in accordance with scales and regulations approved by Parliament."
If this Amendment is carried, I propose to move a new Clause providing that the regulations are to be laid before Parliament, and to lie on the Table in the usual way. My desire is to put this question of the pensions to dependants in the hands of the statutory Committee, who will deal with it subject to such a system of regulations as are approved by the Government or the Department and approved by Parliament. I make this proposal because I think this question of pensions to dependants stands on an entirely different footing from that of pensions to wives and children. The pensions to wives and children have been already settled by the Report of the Select Committee. The question as to whether they are to have any more is left to the statutory Committee, who will provide the extra amount out of money that is to be placed at their disposal in whatever way it is settled that they shall have the extra money. The question of pensions to dependants is one of very much greater difficulty, because there is no scale laid down, and in my opinion 317 there can be no absolute scale laid down, because it depends so entirely upon the circumstances of each case. There can be regulations laid down, or a rough scale laid down, to guide the Committee. That is the course followed by the pensions committee and the appeals committee. Certain rules and regulations have been approved of by the War Office, and as far as possible those regulations are complied with. In the case of dependants the circumstances of the family have to be considered in almost every case.
I have three cases here for instance. In one of them a soldier contributed 20s. per week to his family, and under the regulations now laid down that family is considered to be dependent upon him to the extent of 14s. per week. In another family in which the wages of other members of the family are somewhat higher, they are considered to be dependent to the extent of about 9s. per week. In another family where the wages of the male members were equal to his, if not superior, they would be considered dependent upon him to the extent of 5s. per week. That system by which those dependants' allowances have been settled is all very well when you are considering the actual loss that the family suffers by reason of the man having gone to the front, but I do not think they are in the least any guide as to what should be the proper pension for that family. For instance, if a soldier has been the mainstay of his mother, or brothers or sisters, they probably now are getting a very considerable amount, but it is clear that that amount ought not to be the basis on which a pension is to be given. I mention that as an example, and to show that the actual problem is one which needs consideration of all the circumstances of the family. Who is going to give that consideration? As far as I can see, the best authority to do so will be the statutory Committee, acting in conjunction with the local committees all over the country. Very much the same system has been already in vogue, and although in the earlier stages it did not give satisfaction it is now in much better order and working satisfactorily. The circumstances are looked into, and the local needs and conditions are reported upon, and then the matter is dealt with in accordance with the information so acquired by the central authority.
I think the ultimate settlement of this question must be left to the central authority, because the circumstances differ 318 in different parts of the country. The conditions of living, the rate of wages, the amount of rent, and other things may differ, and you have to adjudicate with a knowledge of the circumstances all over the country. I believe that the best authority to do that would be the statutory authority. If you do not do that you have got to leave the matter, as the Bill leaves it, exactly in the position it is now in, namely, that the War Office and the Admiralty have to settle the amounts. I do not see any reason why either the War Office or the Admiralty should be troubled with this particular question, namely, the proper settlement of the amount of money that you are going to allow to the dependants, the brothers and sisters, all over the country. That is the reason why I raise this point, and I hope the Committee will give it due consideration, because I am sure it is a very important question of administration. I cannot help thinking that the Government have not realised the complications that will arise by having this kind of dual authority. If you are going to have matters investigated by the War Office you will have to initiate some system of official examination. There are no detailed proposals in this Bill by which you can gather what is going to be the official system. If you are going to leave the matter to the War Office and the Admiralty, I suppose it will be done through the pension officers, or that they will have to institute some system of examination in order to protect the taxpayer. The one simple system would be—leave the whole thing to the statutory Committee, subject to regulations to be approved by Parliament.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know that he will be surprised if I say that his proposal is one which would make the statutory Committee award pensions from public funds in these cases. That is quite outside the Report of the Select Committee, and is, if I may say so, quite outside the purpose of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to supplement, by means other than by votes of Parliament, scales laid down and submitted to this House. That is the purpose in the case of dependent relatives, other than the wife and child, and that is the case in which my right hon. Friend proposes to let the statutory Committee determine the ward of the amount. He will recognise, and no one more readily, that this is the only place in this Bill 319 where the statutory Committee would make an award of a grant, or pension, or allowance from public funds. That is quite a novel principle and, he will see, is very far-reaching, and I think goes far beyond the supplementary purposes of the measure. On the Second Reading I think I used the word "scales" rather inadvisedly, because cases of these other dependant relatives are so very varied that it would no doubt be impossible to frame a scale; but what we have done since that Debate is to frame a series of regulations and instructions, the result of which would be that these cases at the end of the twenty-six weeks' separation allowance, when it comes to a question of the pension to be paid, if any, or the gratuity to be made, will fall into a definite category.
We shall get a report, and we are only too ready to receive all relevant information from those who have close acquaintance with the condition of these poor people. We shall then apply the regulations and make an award of public funds under those regulations. We will give an undertaking, and I think I can say the same for the War Office, that when we have come to a common agreement as to the regulations and instructions under which these payments are to be made, they shall be laid on the Table of the House. I think it is only fair and constitutional that the House should have an opportunity of examining the regulations under which these grants will be made, and that will be done. I hope, however, my right hon. Friend will not ask the House to part with these rights, or to leave persons to award public money in a way which is not done anywhere else, though I admit most gratefully that we are always ready, and must be always ready, to receive any advice, any assistance, or any information which bears upon a case, and which will enable us to make our award more absolutely in accordance with the justice of the case. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be accepted.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
We all feel the cogency of what has been said, that this is the only Amendment on which it is possible to raise in connection with the statutory Committee itself the question of appeals from local pension officers and local committees, which might have been done under the elastic terms, "In accordance with scales and regulations approved by Parliament," and I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I try in half a dozen sen- 320 tences to explain what the grievance is. I do not agree that this system is working satisfactorily in all parts of the country. You get no appeal on any question of a grant, or pension, or separation allowance on behalf of the beneficiary. What you have is a reference to my right hon. Friend and his Committee, when a pension officer and his committee differ as to the amount. That is an appeal of one official against the committee, or the committee against the official. The people who are waiting to know what is the amount by which they ought to benefit have no right of appeal at all. Those of us who take the view I am trying to express want you thoroughly to recognise the supremacy of Parliament, and the fact that the War Office and Admiralty and the grants which they ultimately pay should be subject to the control of Parliament. We say there ought to be some tribunal or committee to which the individual himself or herself can appeal from the decision of this local tribunal, even if the pension officer and the local committee agree. People are not satisfied with having no means of appeal whatever, if the local officer and his committee happen to agree. Probably after a very little while it will only be necessary to appeal on questions that raise new points. A statutory Committee of this kind might well have among its duties the decision of questions of facts upon which an appeal ought to lie, and I hope before—

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
made a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.

§ Sir R. ADKINS
It gives an appeal, or might be construed to give an appeal, from the local committee to the statutory Committee, but as the Bill is now drafted there is no indication that other things besides pensions, mentioned in the title of the Bill, should come within the perview of these local committees, and that there should be a definite appeal from them to the statutory Committee. I do not want a categorical answer now. I only want the Government between now and the Report stage to consider first of all that they will deal with the question of appeal, and secondly, that they will so deal with the question of an appeal that the poorest man and woman in the land will know that there is some appeal beyond the local officer, who is often a very inadequate official, or his Committee. We want an appeal that will effect the general principle, some body of weight, 321 such as the statutory Committee would provide, and I beg my hon. Friend to give the Committee an assurance, and to explain how and why, seeing that it is laid down, there is an appeal which will not satisfy the public, and with regard to which, I know of my own knowledge in the Midlands and in Lancashire, at all events, there is greater dissatisfaction.

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I have not had the advantage of hearing the whole of this Debate, as I was obliged to leave the House for a short time, but there are very few points with which I have greater sympathy than this question of appeal. My own, what I call larger, scheme did not commend itself to the Government of the day. There were many difficulties in the way of putting that scheme into force. I have always held the view very strongly indeed that these people, who have their whole fate decided by a tribunal, ought to have some opportunity of appealing practically to a higher, a larger, and a wider tribunal. Often in the working of the Royal Patriotic Fund we have had to reject a case. We have had to say that the death of the man was not really due to war service, and that, therefore, the widow was not entitled to a pension. New evidence has then come up, because there has always been an opportunity of reviewing that case, and of giving more special attention to it, perhaps, than we gave on the first occasion. I am sure as time goes on we shall discover many cases in this country which have been turned down in one place or another, and where that poor, unhappy woman finds herself without any pension of any sort or kind. The authorities on evidence sufficient for them, but not perhaps sufficient for a court of appeal, have decided against her. We have decided to consider many matters between now and the Report stage, and I can only tell my hon. Friend that this is one of them very dear to my own heart, and I will see whether in consultation with hon. Friends of mine we cannot give some appeal from the local committee to some larger body.

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
I think my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to say so, is mixing up two different points. The dependants' allowance is quite a different thing from the pensions which will be decided by this local committee. Now we know that in the past with the pensions committee that a difference between them and the pensions officer has come either 322 to the War Office or the Admiralty for settlement. What I understand will be the functions of the new Committee will be that they are to consider and make recommendation on the questions referred to them by the statutory Committee. The local committee is empowered by Clause 4, paragraph, (a): To inquire into any case referred to them by the statutory Committee, and to report to the statutory Committee their advice and recommendations in respect thereto. I contend that the functions of this local committee will be to inquire into the pensions of the applicants or dependants, and that they will make the recommendation to the statutory Committee as to the amount of the pension. They must make their recommendation as to the amount to which the people are entitled. That would come before the statutory Committee in London, and they would consider the recommendation of the local committee. The point of difference, I contend, is this: That when the statutory Committee make their recommendation to the War Office or the Admiralty there is no appeal if the War Office or the Admiralty differ from the recommendation of the statutory Committee; but there is, in my opinion, an appeal from the local committee to the statutory Committee. Anyone there can make a representation to the statutory Committee to the effect that the recommendations have not been in accordance with the evidence brought before the local committee. If the statutory Committee make liberal pensions, they may be cut down by the War Office or the Admiralty. That is the point raised by my hon. Friend opposite that there should be some appeal from the decision on these points. I myself rather agree that you cannot subordinate the War Office or the Admiralty as to what they may decide in matters arising out of the payment of public funds. But I do contend that there is a very striking difference between the dependants' allowance we decide now and the pensions under this Committee.

§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'fact,' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), after the word "fact" ["any question of fact"], to insert the words, "referred to them by the local committee."
323 The object of this Amendment is to get a little information, not that I desire unduly to press the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the following page of the Bill—page 5—and note the functions of the local committees, he will observe that the first function is— (a) to inquire into any case referred to them by the statutory Committee, and to report to the statutory Committee their advice and recommendations with respect thereto. Clause 3, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), states that the functions of the statutory Committee shall be— (a) to decide any question of fact on the determination of which …. and so on. Would it not save an enormous amount of trouble to give the central Committee the advantage of the local information? If the local committees were left to determine the facts that would be accepted by those applying for this Grant, only referring to the statutory Committee from the local committee such as were not agreed upon by the people who made the application? That is to say, the statutory Committee would form a Court of Appeal in those cases which are not agreed upon. There may be some other reason for the paragraph (a) of Clause 4, but it struck me that it did not quite cover the point raised by my Amendment.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
As I read my hon. Friend's Amendment it means this: That the local committee shall take the opinion of the statutory Committee on any question of fact in any case they care to refer to them. As regards cases they do not wish to refer to the statutory Committee then the local committee's finding will be final in regard to that matter. If that is the meaning of this Amendment, I think it will be seen on consideration that we could not accept it, because this point of fact must come to the statutory Committee. It cannot be left to the local committee.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I do not think you are right, but I do not press my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (b), leave out the words "a scale of" ["a scale of supplementary grants"], and insert instead thereof the words "regulations for."—[Sir Charles Nicholson.]

324

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) paragraph (b) after the word "grants" ["a scale of supplementary grants"] to insert the words "including grants in aid of education, training, and emigration, provided such emigration be to one of His Majesty's Dominions oversea." I do not know whether it is necessary for me to move this Amendment, because if regulations are included in the Bill on a certain scale it will be open to the Committee to move regulations which cover this particular point. No doubt we will be told that these points are covered generally in the Bill, but I prefer to see them put in seriatim. I remember the Unemployed Workmen's Act, 1905. Though I was not in the House at the time, I took some part in connection with that Bill, especially that part which dealt with emigration. Regulations were inserted, and by these certain moneys were allocated for emigration expenses. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill whether, if he cannot accept my Amendment, he will see that the point will be covered before the Bill becomes an Act?

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I know the very great interest that my hon. Friend takes in emigration and particularly in emigration to our own Dominions. But it is quite unnecessary to add these words. The grants will include grants for emigration and education. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation now constantly makes grants for education, the training of apprentices, and for emigration. I am quite sure that this body will do exactly the same thing, always provided they have the funds at their disposal, as in all probability they will have.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the word "exceptional" ["exceptional circumstances of the case"].
I suggest this Amendment on the ground that this word "exceptional" is very restrictive, and that the statutory Committee ought to have power to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case. As I understand it, if you leave in the word "exceptional," they would only be able to take into account circumstances in which that particular case differed from all other cases, and I venture to think that 325 is not desirable. The great difficulty we have had with regard to these allowances and so on is that what might be adequate for one district is not adequate for another, owing to the differences in the standard of earnings and living. I think if the word "exceptional" stands there it would be very difficult—perhaps impossible—to take into account all those circumstances which do not relate to one exceptional case but rather to a district of rather wide application, and which ought to be taken into account with regard to all the cases of a district. I, therefore, hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the omission of the word "exceptional," and so leave it to the statutory Committee to take into account all the circumstances of the case which they consider to be germane.

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I cannot accept the Amendment. The word "exceptional" was put in as a guide to the Committee. After all, this House has accepted the general scale of pensions laid down by the Government after great deliberation. After listening to the Debates I came to the conclusion that the House accepted that scale as liberal and generous, and we must accept that scale and adopt it as a general rule, and as a general rule the flat rate will be the prevailing rate. In exceptional cases this Committee is set up for the very purpose of supplementing that flat rate and adding something to the scale laid down as being in most cases adequate. That must be the guiding principle. We must look to the enormous expense that will grow up under the present scale of pensions, supplemented by this Bill. We must look to those who have to pay these pensions as well as to those who receive them. We must look to the fact that most of the taxpayers will never get the scale of pension. They will get the old age pension of 5s. a week. They will never get this scale of pensions, to which they will have to contribute. We must not make the burden too heavy. The word "exceptional" is a guiding word to the Committee that they must find exceptional circumstances before supplementing the State pensions, which were considered by this House as generous. I hope one of the first acts of the statutory Committee will be to set on foot a set of principles on which they will be guided.

§ 10.0 P.M.

§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be compe- 326 tent to the statutory Committee, under the words as they stand, to take into account circumstances affecting a particular district rather than a particular individual or family? That is the point I want decided. If they are to take into account the circumstances affecting a particular district I am content.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), leave out the word "scale" ["in accordance with such scale as aforesaid"], and insert instead thereof the word "regulations."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]

§ Mr. MOUNT
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (d), after the word "grants," to insert the words "or allowances."
I propose this Amendment in order to make it quite clear that this Committee may have the power to make weekly allowances to men who are not entitled to them from any other sources. I specially want it for the purpose of the class of men to whom the hon. Member for East Edinburgh referred earlier in the day—the case of the son who enlists while the father is alive. The father dies and the son then becomes the support of his mother. Under the present system the mother is not allowed to get any allowance even though the son makes an allotment. I hope under this statutory Committee some allowance may be made, and move my Aendment to make it clear that there is power to make that allowance.

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I am quite willing to accept these words, although I think the word "grants" would enable the Committee to make them in weekly sums if they desired to do it. I will accept the words in order to make it clear that there is some alternative to the grant of a lump sum.

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ Mr. HOHLER
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (e).
My object is to introduce a new Clause later on which prevents the pension of an officer, a sailor, marine or soldier from being liable to forfeiture. I submit that when a soldier, sailor, or marine has earned his pension he is absolutely entitled to it. Of cousse, we have not seen these Regulations, but the forfeitures in regard to which these pensions are liable are 327 generally when a man is sentenced for some offence involving hard labour. Speaking for myself, I have never seen the justice why sailors and soldiers should be worse treated than civilians. Two men are jointly indicted, one a sailor and one a civilian, for causing, say, bodily harm. They are both sentenced to six months' hard labour and they both serve their sentence, but the sailor, in addition to the sentence, in virtue of some Statute or some regulation or order under which the pension is granted, forfeits his pension. It may be, if he is a very young man, that it is of very considerable value. It may well be worth, at the age of forty, if it is £50 a year, £700 or £800. I consider it a grievous injustice that he should lose his pension; he has earned it, and ought to be entitled to keep it. Equally with the civilian he should be treated evenly before the law, and there is no reason why he should lose his pension when the civilian does his sentence and loses nothing more.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I understand my hon. and learned Friend wishes to leave out this paragraph in order to bring in a new Clause to say that no pensions granted to a soldier or a sailor shall be liable to forfeiture. I do not know whether it would be convenient to dispose of this question at once instead of dealing with it piecemeal. Neither the Admiralty nor the War Office could accept a proposal such as this, because the conditions under which pensions are forfeited are laid down in the Royal Warrant. There must be some conditions which enable pensions to be withdrawn from those who have clearly proved themselves unworthy of their enjoyment. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would be able to make out a case for saying that under no circumstances of any sort or kind is a pension to be forfeited. Cases of gross fraud are happily rare, but there are cases where those who have earned pensions have acted in a way which justifies the forfeiture of their pension. My hon. and learned Friend will see that the War Office and the Admiralty could not accept such a sweeping proposal as to say that under no circumstances can a pension be forfeited, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
Are we to understand that this Committee will have the power to decide whether a pension shall or shall not be withdrawn?

328

§ Mr. FORSTER
This Committee would only deal with the question of forfeiture in respect of allowances which they have themselves granted. I intend later to move an Amendment to make that quite clear. This Committee will have nothing to do with the question of the forfeiture of pensions granted to sailors and soldiers under the Royal Warrant. The Committee will only deal with the forfeiture of pensions to soldiers, sailors, and officers which the Committee have granted out of the funds at their disposal.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
I should like to make it clear that there are cases where a man entitled to a pension has had it taken away from him. In one case I know of the wife was an excellent woman, who had lived with her husband for many years and brought up a family, and when the pension was taken away the wife was left absolutely starving and the children were thrown on the rates. I think, in a case like that, there should be some appeal from a decision which takes away a man's pension and leaves his wife and family in the condition I have described.

§ Colonel YATE
Would it not be possible to have some restriction under which pensions granted by this Committee should be forfeited, and to say that they should not be forfeited except under those special restrictions? Will the right hon. Gentleman insert restrictions to that effect?

§ Sir R. ADKINS
I think we are all agreed that no pension ought to be forfeited unless some crime has been committed. Is it really necessary to keep this matter open? Is it not possible to lay down that the only way in which a pension can be forfeited is after some conviction in a Court of Law? Nothing short of an actual conviction for crime ought to deprive a man of that which is merely deferred pay. I think we might lay down in the Statute or the Regulations the conditions under which a pension should be forfeited, and then we should take this very invidious duty away from the statutory Committee.

§ Mr. HOLT
I wish to protest against the idea that a man has a right to hold his pension to all eternity no matter how he behaves, and it should be paid only on condition of general good behaviour. If a man, after receiving his pension, chooses to behave in such a manner which would have caused his dismissal in time of service his pension should be stopped. Take 329 the case where a pensioner becomes an habitual drunkard. Is it contended that the State should continue to pay a pension in that case? I think such a pension ought to be stopped at once, because one of the implied conditions of any pension is that the pensioner should conduct himself as a decent and respectable member of society. I think the authorities at the War Office are the proper people to decide this matter. I want to protest against the idea that because a person has behaved very well in the past he is entitled to draw an annuity for the rest of his life and at the same time behave himself in any way he pleases. That is an absolutely intolerable idea. Take the case put forward by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). It is clear that if a man is going to misconduct himself in that way the pension ought to be paid to his wife. What is the good of paying a pension to a thoroughly disreputable fellow, leaving his wife and family to come on the rates through his misconduct? The best way is to consider whether a man deserves to get his pension, and if he does not we should consider whether it should be paid to his wife or dependants, or whether it should be forfeited for The benefit of the State.

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
This Bill does not interfere at all with the regulations under which pensions are forfeited in connection with the War Office and the Admiralty, but the power is given to the statutory Committee to revoke pensions and forfeit them for a time or season owing to bad conduct on the part of the recipient of those pensions. That is constantly done by the Royal Patriotic Commissioners, who, instead of taking the pensions away altogether, frequently hand them over to the wives or some other person in order that the children may have the benefit of the pension That is the course we propose to adopt.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (e), after the word "whether," to insert the words "as respects the wife, widow, child, or other dependant."
I am moving this Amendment and another a few lines further down in order to carry out the intention which I expressed a few moments ago. The effect of the two Amendments is that all the pensions granted to soldiers and sailors by the War Office and the Admiralty are 330 untouched and untouchable by the statutory Committee; but, with regard to the grants, pensions, and allowances made by the statutory Committee, they retain the full right of settling the conditions under which they may cease to become payable.

§ Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ Futher Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (e), after the word "allowance," to insert the words "and as respects an officer or man any supplementary grant."—[Mr. Forster.]

§ Mr. HOGGE
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (f), after the word "decide," to insert the words "on application from the local committee."
Might I ask whether the statutory Committee would use the local committees for determining what seems to me to be a purely local thing?

§ Sir RYLAND ADKINS
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he could accept these words or some other words which would indicate that, before the central or statutory Committee decided between two claimants, the local committee would be consulted?

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I do not think that it is necessary to put in these words. Obviously the only evidence which the statutory Committee can obtain is through the local committee.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. HOHLER
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (f), at the end, to add the words "or in what proportion they are entitled."
It seems to me that these words are required. I do not know otherwise what is really the object of the Clause. There might be two or more claimants to one of these supplementary pensions and they might be both dependants, and in that sense entitled. I do not know why it has been limited to a decision as to which of them is to receive the pension or allowance.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
We should like to consider this point. I am not quite sure, if the words were added here, that they might not commit us to something more than would be desirable. If my hon. and learned Friend has in mind that it might be desirable to give from these grants other than moneys provided by Parliament something to one dependant less than the 331 maximum usually given and something to another dependant, it might be wise for the statutory Committee to have that power. If the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment now, we will consider it between now and the Report stage.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (i), after the word "Service," to insert the words, "and the widows and children and dependants of deceased officers and men."
I am not quite sure that this is the right place, but I have put the Amendment down in order to obtain the views of the Government whether or not they will insert in this Bill some provision which has been asked for by many societies connected with women, by which the statutory Committee shall be able to deal with the question of the training and employment of women. There is no provision in the Bill at present by which the statutory Committee can assist in any way the training of widows, or children, or dependants, and I have been asked by one or two societies to try and get it inserted. The only place where I can see it proper to introduce the provision is where the Committee do provide for helping in the training and employment of disabled officers and men. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is or is not willing to agree to the insertion of words of that character in this or some other place?

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
This would enormously enlarge the powers conferred by Sub-section (i). I cannot accept these words. The object of the Sub-section is to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they leave the Service. It refers to men alone, and not to their widows, children or dependants, and I certainly should not propose to enlarge that particular Sub-section. Whether or not it might be desirable to amplify the powers given to the statutory Committee to give something more than the supplementary grant in the case of widows, children and dependants, is a matter I will consider if the right hon. Gentleman will put words on the Paper with that object, but I am quite sure that this is not the proper place for them.

§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this matter before the Report stage, especially in the case of widows and children, because it 332 would be infinitely better for them and for everyone concerned that they should be trained for remunerative work rather than that they should always have to be supported.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
I want to say one or two words upon the Amendment which stands next in my name, although I do not propose to press it.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member cannot make a speech without a Motion before the Committee.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
Then I beg to move in Sub-section (i), after the word "Service," to insert the words "and if necessary for the dependants of such officers and men."
There must be something done for the dependants of disabled soldiers and men as well as for the dependants of those who who are not disabled. As far as I can see, Sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) refer only to the dependants of officers and men who have died in the War, but here we have a Sub-section which refers to the case of the dependants of disabled officers and men, and I think that something should be done in regard to them in the same way as something is done for the dependants of those killed in the War.

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I cannot accept these words because I am afraid they would very much enlarge the duties, and consequently the amount of money which would be required by this Committee.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN
I beg to move in Sub-section (1), paragraph (i), to leave out the words "including provision for their health, training, and employment," and to insert instead thereof the words "other than the training for and transference to employment."
The point to which I wish to give expression on behalf of the party to which I have the honour to belong, is that at the conclusion of the War it is anticipated that there will be a very large number of men who will come back, and there may be difficulty in finding them employment. There is no doubt at all that a good deal will depend upon the way in which the men are disbanded as to what is likely to be the state of the labour market in this country. We think that work of such great magnitude as this might easily be—should be—taken up by a committee 333 altogether separate from that set up under this Bill—a committee entirely under the responsibility of the Government—and that the Government themselves should find the money for the training and transference to employment of those men who have been fighting in the War. It is a very important thing, and I trust those responsible for the Bill will give some consideration to it, as we are anxious that the Government should accept the full responsibility, when the time comes, and should not shunt it on to an organisation of this description.

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
So far as I can gather the lion. Gentleman desires that a separate committee should be set up after the War, or towards the end of the War, dealing with all cases of discharged soldiers and sailors who are not able to return to their ordinary occupations in civil life owing to wounds or disease.

§ Mr. C. DUNCAN
Owing to the state of the labour market.

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
That very much enlarges it.

§ Mr. DUNCAN
I agree.

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
My own opinion is that there should be one large committee, very representative, in every county and big borough, which would be charged with the care of these soldiers and sailors. I still hold to that opinion. I shall change that opinion if I find that very inadequate funds are placed at the disposal of the statutory Committee. For many reasons it would be infinitely better to have only one committee. It is very difficult to man one committee thoroughly, and it is likely to be very much more difficult to man two committees, say in Liverpool, Glasgow, Birmingham, or any big town or big military or naval centre. It is best to put upon the statutory Committee this great duty of looking after those who are disabled through wounds or disease and who cannot, from one cause or another, find an occupation or return to those civil occupations they have left. We are not dealing with the Old Army. We are dealing with New Armies which are mainly civilians, recruited from civilian life, drawn from civil occupations, and desiring to return to their occupations when they return to this country. This Amendment, if persisted in, would limit the operations of the statutory Committee to a very great degree, because it would place the duty on them of making provi- 334 sions for these men after they left the Service, and debar them of training them for or transferring them to other civil employment. I am sure the hon. Member does not want to restrict the actions of the Committee that way, provided the Committee prove themselves to be the potent instruments he and I both hope they will, and that they are possessed of sufficient funds with which to carry out these important duties. If the Amendment was carried, while the Committee would be bound to make provision for the care and training and general health and welfare of discharged soldiers and sailors, they would be limited to minimising them or instituting or providing them with adequate pensions on which they could live. I do not think the hon. Member means that; I am sure we all want, if we possibly can, to provide these men when they return with an arm or a leg off, or injured in some way, and unable to carry on their former occupations, with training, by which they can shift from their former occupations to a new occupation, and so, with the help of their pensions, support themselves in a fair measure of comfort, but they ought to have some occupation in industrial life in which they can pass the rest of their life.

§ Mr. DUNCAN
I do not desire to press the Amendment unduly, but I ought to say that in my judgment this problem of disbanding the New Army is altogether out of proportion to any activities of any committee with regard to the Armies of the past. I am confident that if the committee takes this job on they will never have the funds to do it, and for that reason I think the Government ought not to shirk its responsibility, but ought to face it and meet it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I beg to move, after the word "health" ["including provisions for their health"], to insert the word "housing."
I am quite conscious that this also may involve money, but we are going to have presently, I presume, as soon as we have disposed of the remaining Amendments on this Clause, a discussion on the question where the funds are to come from. It is perhaps the most important discussion that we have yet to cover on this extremely important Bill. But there is one point which, I think, deserves very careful consideration. It always seems to me to be a pity to mention the exact things that 335 one must do. Here we give them the concern of the health and the training—it does not say what for; presumably for further employment—but we commit no other duties to them. A man who comes home totally disabled has a pension of 25s. a week. If he is partially disabled he gets the difference between what he can make himself and the 25s. which is given a totally disabled soldier. It is perfectly obvious to those who are acquainted with the men in the Army that there is a large number of cases where a man, isolated from any other help, will be unable to maintain himself on that pension and will therefore become a source of anxiety and further cost to his friends. We have already, in connection with pensions for soldiers retired from the Service, homes provided, and it occurs to me that a very excellent way of helping these disabled soldiers would be to group them together, according to their capacity for work, in homes, where their joint allowances or pensions from the Government would allow the community to make provision for them collectively in a much more comfortable way than they could if they confined the duties of this Committee simply to the health, the training, and the employment of these men. In these days we have the whole question of garden cities cropping up. There are hon. Members of this House who are interested in that particular kind of co-operative building effort, and we have examples, which are probably well known to the right hon. Gentleman, where old age pensioners are given an opportunity to spend their old age in comfortable surroundings. Has the Committee taken into consideration the fact that the same thing will apply to these disabled soldiers and sailors who are coming home, and will the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an assurance that in addition to health, training, and employment the statutory Committee will complete the whole cycle of what requires to be done for these poor fellows by undertaking also any schemes of housing which will enable them, having regard to the collective pensions or allowances, to make more adequate and better provision for these disabled soldiers and sailors?

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I do not think the hon. Member can really expect me to acecpt this enormous enlargement of the duties of the statutory Committee. Just think what this Committee have to do. In addition to providing supplementary 336 pensions, they have to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training and employment, and now the hon. Member suggests that they should find houses for all these disabled men on their return from the War.

§ Mr. HOGGE
The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. It is really an important point. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman or his Committee to find particular houses for individual men. I say that if a soldier comes home absolutely disabled he is entitled to 25s. per week. If he is partially disabled he is entitled to the difference between what he can earn himself and the 25s. pension. There are a great number of these men, and if they are left in isolated circumstances with that small amount they may become a further burden upon the community. Would the right hon. Gentleman take 200 or 250 of these men and put them together in a particular home where their collective pensions would enable him to make provision for them in a way which would be more comfortable and much more humane, because, as he knows, a great many of these men who have come home are marvels of the surgeon's skill, and it will indeed be a tremendous effort for them to get through the rest of their days? In these cases will he take powers in this statutory Committee to make provision for them?

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
Those powers the Committee already have. The soldiers and sailors who come home helplessly disabled get 25s. pension and 2s. 6d. for each child, and under the words of Subsection (1), of Clause 3, to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men, they can make the provision which the hon. Member desires, perhaps of a temporary nature. If, however, the hon. Member insists upon putting in the word "housing," it would indicate to the statutory Committee that they were required to house all the disabled officers and men who applied for houses. That would be a very extensive task to put upon them, and it would be very heavy in addition to the other obligations put upon the statutory Committee.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
I hardly think that that objection can be sustained because the word in the Bill is "employment," and following the argument of the 337 right hon. Gentleman that word would seem to indicate that the statutory Committee have to find employment for every one of the wounded soldiers. The word "employment" there does not involve any such liability. Therefore the word "housing" would not involve any further liability, and would only apply to cases which the Committee themselves consider suitable for the special kind of institutional treatment.

§ Mr. McKENNA
This is a matter which may take some time. We have other work to do. Perhaps it would be more convenient to adjourn the discussion now. I, therefore, move to report Progress. [HON, MEMBERS: "No."]

§ Mr. HOGGE
May I appeal to my right hon. Friend? I have sat here with others all day. Our Friends in charge of the Bill have also given very close attendance. I do not think that anybody in the House could be accused of attempting to delay the measure. It is an extremely important measure, and though we have not got to the end of it we have done extremely well.

§ Mr. McKENNA
indicated assent.

§ Mr. HOGGE
This measure is one of more importance than any other in which the Government are interested at the present time. It is much more important than the National Register. I think that the Government should, therefore, continue the Committee stage of this Bill instead of proceeding with the National Registration Bill to-morrow, for this Bill gives the dependants' widows and children of soldiers notice that we at any rate are making them secure in their position, before going on to number anybody else who may be sent out to fight. You will get your National Registration Bill in plenty of time, but let us finish the practical work first.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I quite agree that there is much force in what the hon. Gentleman says. Would it meet with the general acceptance of the House to sanction the Resolution on the National Registration Bill to-night and to go on with this Bill to-morrow?

§ Mr. HOGGE
I think that that is a very fair offer, and so far as I am personally concerned I accept it, but I do not commit anybody else.

§ Mr. GOLDSTONE
It seems to me that the offer is a perfectly fair one, and so far as we on these Benches are concerned we shall acquiesce.

338

§ Mr. PRINGLE
I think that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is very reasonable, but I hope that in accepting it we shall have in the time at the disposal of the Committee some real explanation of the finance of the National Registration Bill, which we have never so far received, as our future action on that may be determined by the explanation which we receive.

§ Mr. WATT
Perhaps we might finish this particular Clause before we report Progress. I have sat here all day waiting for a particular Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. I have sat here for hours and now it is put off until to-morrow. I should like to go on and finish this Clause to-night.

§ Mr. McKENNA
If the hon. Member will agree to let Progress be reported, the Bill will be taken as the first Order tomorrow.

§ Mr. PRINGLE
We are going to have the National Register Bill taken as the second Order tomorrow, and we do not know how long the present Bill will take. Are we to be faced with a suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule?

§ Mr. McKENNA
No.

§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Wednesday).