§ Mr. HODGEI beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words "in the opinion of this House, the State should accept responsibility for the payment of pensions and allowances to all sailors discharged from the Navy on account of diseases contracted or developed during service with the Colours and, in the case of death, pensions and allowances to the dependants, if any."
In moving this Amendment I would like to be permitted to say I think the bulk of us, not only in this House but outside, do not appreciate what the Navy has been to this country. I am afraid, too, that in the Allied countries there is likewise that lack of appreciation of what the Navy is to those countries in general. I have endeavoured, when I have been across the Channel to bring home to the French people in particular, when questions are asked as to the part we are playing, the great part which the Navy is playing, and which is always forgotten, and my desire in moving my Amendment is to do something to mark the nation's appreciation of the services which not only the officers but the rank and file have rendered to their country. In his speech the First Lord disposed of many of the criticisms which have been levelled at workers generally as to shirking and drunkenness. He made the statement that more work had been done so far as naval shipbuilding is concerned in these times than has ever been the case previously in our country's history. That of itself is a demonstration of the energy which those engaged in shipbuilding have put into their work in doing their level best to keep up the number of ships in the Navy and to execute repairs promptly and efficiently. I believe some of the criticisms which have been levelled at the Department are well founded, because it is within my knowledge that men have been taken 1447 away from war work and put upon merchant work. If it is necessary that the Navy should be kept supreme, then I think naval work should be the first consideration.
In seeking to present my Amendment to the House with respect to provision for those disabled either by wounds or by disease, and particularly through disease, I find there is not that consideration shown to disabled men which one would naturally expect. We have a great deal of what I would describe as maudlin sentimentality with respect to reprisals upon the Germans for the Zeppelin raids. I wish we could have the same sentimentality towards men who have come back from the Navy suffering from disease undoubtedly contracted as a result of the hardships they have had to undergo. If there should be the slightest doubt as to how the man's disease was contracted, then, in my opinion—and in this I believe I re-echo the sentiments, not only of Members of this House, but of others outside—the man should have the benefit of the doubt. When we realise that all over the country are to be seen men who have come back suffering from disease and wounds, men who, either get no pension or only a paltry pension, and who have in consequence to resort to parochial relief, can it be wondered at that there are thousands of men in the country who are reluctant to serve their country when they see the reward received by those who have come back suffering from wounds or from disease? As compared with the Army the treatment these men receive is very much better, and the number of cases in proportion to the number who come back is very much fewer in the Navy than in the Army. I desire to give that credit to the Admiralty. But, still, there are many hard cases arising under the present practice of granting pensions. That practice is governed by an Order in Council of 25th July, 1915.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HODGEAt any rate, these are the essential words:
A pension to any seaman or marine discharged from further service on account of injury received or disease contracted directly on account of service during the War.These words are very much better than those to be found in the corresponding Order which relates to the Army, but, 1448 notwithstanding this fact, in a good many cases of men who have come back the warrant is not as I think read fairly, neither, when there is a doubt as to when the disease was contracted, is the decision given in favour of the individual man. The first case with which I would trouble the House is that of a man who was discharged for defective vision. If a proper medical examination is made at the time a man enlists and if, within the space of five or six months, his vision becomes defective, it must be as a result of his service. In this case a man stood for the examination for a mate's certificate. He failed, and it was only then that it was discovered that his vision was defective. He was immediately discharged, and on the very day of his discharge an intimation was sent to his wife that there would be no further separation allowance. He has not received a single farthing since the date of his discharge in any shape or form. I do not know the date on which the man enlisted, but he was blown up by a mine on the 6th August, 1915, while serving on one of His Majesty's trawlers, and he was not discharged until the 19th February of the present year. If that man's vision was perfect when he entered the Service, is it not reasonable to suppose that some damage was done to his vision as a result of his being blown up by a mine? At any rate, here you have the case of a man having rendered this service, having run these risks and endured this hardship of having been blown up, yet there is not a single farthing of pension for him.
§ Dr. MACNAMARACan I have that case?
§ Mr. HODGECertainly, I will give you all the cases. The next case is one of a Royal Naval Reservist who was called up on the 3rd August, 1914, and discharged on the 16th January, 1916, as being medically unfit for further service. Unfortunately, these cases have become a burden upon the National Insurance Act. On being discharged without a pension these men receive 10s. a week for twenty-six weeks. The medical certificate of discharge in this case states that the man is suffering from neurasthenia. Considering that this man put in more than a year's service, it is reasonable to suppose that his nervous disorder arose as a result of his naval service. At any rate, there is another case of a man being discharged 1449 Without a pension. The Admiralty ought not to throw upon a section of the community a financial duty that belongs to the State as a whole. Why should approved societies be burdened with cases of this and a similar character? When the actuaries supplied the data with regard to the Insurance Act it was never anticipated that a burden of this character would be placed upon these societies. Quite outside that, it is most unfair that a section of the community should bear a burden which ought to be a national burden. The next case is that of a man mobilised on the 3rd August, 1914, and discharged in August, 1915, as being medically unfit for further service. He was granted a pension from the 26th August, 1915, to the 25th May, 1917, of £9 12s. per annum—that is, 3s. 6d per week. Here, again, the man was unfit for work and came on the funds of an approved society. Since then the man has gradually improved. A week or two ago he felt himself quite capable of undertaking his former employment, but then the firm, with great disloyalty I think—it is a controlled establishment—said they could not displace the man who had been doing the work he formerly did. I do not know the age of the man who is in his job. Probably he is a man of military age who is screening himself, and the firm are screening themselves behind a war badge. It appears to me that in a case like this Government pressure ought to be brought to bear upon the firm if the man is capable of being replaced in his former employment.
The next case is that of a man who was mobilised on the 3rd August, 1914, as an able seaman, and who has been discharged as a result of his service, suffering from malarial fever contracted during the combined naval and military operations in the Persian Gulf in November, 1914. He was invalided out, according to the man's own statement, from a hospital without even enough money to purchase a suit of clothes. As a matter of fact, he was given no money at all, but was informed by the paymaster at Shrewsbury that he was in debt. That is a nice condition of things after men have done their best for the Flag! I hope that the case I have given, which are only samples, may lead to some reform so far as the Admiralty is concerned. The last case with which I will trouble the House—many more cases could be given, but these are simply typical of what is occurring—is that of a Royal Naval Reserve stoker who was called up and employed in paint- 1450 ing one of His Majesty's ships with caustic paint. While doing this, a splash of caustic paint got into his eye, practically destroying the sight, and consequently he was discharged. He received a pension of 5s. a week from the 21st July, 1915, until 5th January, 1916. It was then reduced to 3s. 6d. per week, and was payable from the 6th January to the 5th July next. This man has been absolutely unable to return to his previous employment in a steel works.
These instances demonstrate that there is great room for improvement so far as concerns those men coming back suffering from disease or accident, as the case may be. The plea put up in many instances is that these men had disease in some latent form previously to their enlistment. Medical men whom I have consulted upon the subject say that if these men had remained at their ordinary employment the disease might never have developed, or, at any rate, would never have developed to such an extent as to prevent the men from following their ordinary employment, but the hardships of training, the hardships of exposure of camp life, and the hardships and exposure of being at sea have developed the disease. That being so, it is safe to say that the disease is a direct result of the man's service, and he, having broken down in endeavouring to do his duty by his country, his country ought to do its duty by the man. There are other cases. A case came before my notice of the Department of Labour Exchanges, which issued an ultimatum to all those serving them who were of military age that they must enlist, otherwise they would be discharged. To demonstrate the shallowness, inefficiency, carelessness, or negligence of the doctors, I may say there was one lad, whom I have known from birth, who presented himself but who was never examined. If he had been stripped, as is usually the case, if he had been examined by the doctor, even in a cursory fashion, or if he had been questioned, it would have been discovered that the lad was suffering from a double rupture. Notwithstanding that he was passed on to the Crystal Palace. He could not undergo the physical drill. The doctors from time to time treated him in an off-hand way. If he was taken out for a route march he had to fall out under two miles, because he could not go on any longer, and it was only when I appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the 1451 Admiralty himself and placed the circumstances before him that a proper examination took place, and the lad was discharged. That is one of the things that wants looking into. Was the doctor who passed him paid a fee? Was the recruiting sergeant who enlisted him paid a fee? This lad was incapable of military service, yet he was kept for a matter of seven or eight weeks at the national expense. He was no good so far as military or naval service was concerned. There have been many such cases, which show some carelessness or negligence somewhere in the Department, and it is to be hoped that an exposure of these things in this House will lead to reform.
§ Mr. BARNESI beg to second the Amendment. Many hard cases have been cited in previous Debates on this subject, and of course they are all included in the 12,000 applicants who have applied for pensions and been refused
§ Dr. MACNAMARANot by the Admiralty.
§ Mr. BARNESI will not say by the Admiralty, but I understand that 12,000 is the figure of the Admiralty and the War Office together, or perhaps 12,000 for the War Office alone. I do not know. At all events a reply was given a few weeks ago that 35,000 men had had pensions granted to them, and 12,000 had been refused. If there is the same proportion with regard to the Navy there is the same need for the Amendment. I do not want to cite particular cases, but I will mention one because I have seen the man, I have seen the doctor, and I know all about it. The man, whose name is James Gardiner, joined in the early days of the War, was sent away, and owing to hardship, cold and privation generally was taken ill with rheumatics. The doctor said he was shamming. Ultimately the brutality or stupidity of the doctor had to give way before the facts and the man is still in hospital. After being in hospital for a few months he was discharged as medically unfit, and refused attention on the ground that the rheumatics had been latent before he joined the Service.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWas he a sailor?
§ Mr. BARNESI forget whether he was a soldier or a sailor. I have so many cases in my mind. If he was a sailor I will submit the facts to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not making any com- 1452 plaint against him. On the contrary, I have had many cases through my hands—probably more than any man in this House—through my connection in the early stages with the pension agitation. I will say this for the right hon. Gentleman, that he gave every one of them sympathetic consideration and so far as he could deal with them in a manner to suit the interests and desires of the applicant that has been done. In seconding this Amendment I want to deal with the matter from the point of view of public policy and of the powers of Parliament. From either one or the other the right policy has not been pursued. From the point of view of public policy it only needs to he pointed out that whatever be the original cause of any man's complaint on coming back from the Army or the Navy, if he is disabled he has got to be maintained by someone. From the point of view of public policy that might be thrown upon the broad shoulders of the Government at once, instead of being borne by the man's relatives, who in many cases have a hard enough struggle to put up with and a heavy enough burden to bear already.
I approach the matter from the point of view of the powers of Parliament, and here I say without the slightest equivocation that, to use a vulgarism, Parliament has been diddled by the Departmental authorities. I do not know who they are, but the simple fact is that we have been deceived, that the Departments were instructed to do something and have not done it, but have constantly hidden themselves behind some Royal Warrant or something or other which they constantly throw into our face, as if these Royal Warrants were something sacrosanct, instead of which they are the mere formula of their own words got up to suit themselves. That is a strong statement to make, but I am going to substantiate it. This time last year I was on a Select Committee of the House of Commons—a very Select Committee. There were only six of us, and four of the six are now Cabinet Ministers, the only two outsiders being myself and the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). We sat for some months and took a great deal of evidence. We considered the matter from all points of view—from the point of view of the soldier and the sailor as well, I believe, as from the point of view of the nation. The Committee was urged by myself and others to make recommendations of a more generous character than 1453 were ultimately made, but it refused to do so, having regard to the interests of the nation and the immense cost which would thereby have been involved. The composition of the Committee was very unusual. It included the present Minister of Munitions and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The character and position of those two right hon. Gentlemen were such that at the time it might have been reasonably thought that anything recommended by that Committee would be to all intents and purposes thereby agreed to. One would almost say that that was strengthened later by the admission of the other two of the six into the Cabinet, but the document issued to the Admiralty, to which reference has already been made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge), and the date of which was also mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench—12th August—by no means gave effect to the mandate of the Select Committee, although by that date four of the six who formed the Committee were actually members of the Cabinet.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
§ Mr. BARNESYour warrant has a little more common sense and humanity in it than the other one; but they are both wrong, and neither gives effect to their mandate, or what ought to have been regarded by both Departments as their mandate. The Committee was set up—
To consider a scheme of pensions and grants for officers and men of the Naval and Military Service, disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War.That may be said to have been the mandate of the Department. Certain recommendations were made based upon that reference.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAHear hear.
§ Mr. BARNESI am glad the right hon. Gentleman assents, because we find that his document of 12th August is a different thing altogether. It is on a very elaborate form, and is made to look very formidable. It is said to have got the Royal Assent by some Privy Council, or something of the sort, held on 12th August, and, instead of giving effect to their mandate, instead of paying or agreeing to pay for "injuries or wounds or disease arising out of the War"—those are the governing words of the mandate—they say they are going to pay "on account of injury received or 1454 disease contracted directly on account of service during the War." What we had in our minds, and what I know every one of these four Cabinet Ministers had in their minds, was that we should at least be as generous to the soldier and the sailor as we had compelled the employer to be. If a workman in the employ of a mill owner or factory owner or shipyard owner, or anything of the sort, meets with an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment, he is entitled to compensation or to a solatium. I will not call it compensation. I do not like the word at all. At all events, the employer is liable to pay the man something if he meets with an accident either within the precincts of the work or anywhere else—he may be a hundred miles away. That is; the law in regard to compensation. Why should it be different for the Admiralty or the War Office? Are they less able to pay than a private employer? It seems to me they are a great deal better able to pay, but instead of giving due effect to that clear mandate that they had from the Committee to pay for anything arising out of or in the course of a man's employment, which it seems to me means to pay for any accident arising to a man whatever in France, Flanders or in the Peninsular or anywhere else, when a man meets with an accident they at once put inquiry on foot to ascertain what he was doing when he met with the accident. I should say if he met with an accident anywhere in France, by night or day, he ought to be entitled to a pension. That is the common-sense interpretation of it. Instead of that, if a man tumbles out of a train while moving from one place of service to another, he is not entitled. A man may fall down in a ricketty billet and he is not entitled. There are many such cases. It is a scandal that men, after having volunteered for service in a time of great national emergency, should be served like that.
Let us take the other point. I want to get back to the mandate, and I want to rub it in to the right hon. Gentleman and to his Department, if I can, that they were charged to give men pensions on account of injuries arising out of this War. They were not told to go into the man's medical history, or that of his family, and ascertain whether when he got rheumatics or consumption they were contracted at the War. They were told to give a pension for any injury or wound arising out of the War. They said they would give a pension to a man who got injuries or 1455 disease "contracted directly on account of service during the War." Those words are much narrower. Take the case of a man, for instance, who becomes consumptive or who has had rheumatics at some time or other in his life. If he had had an easy life and had been employed in an office or a workshop with fairly even temperature all the year round, he might have lived to the allotted span of three score years and ten. But when he gets stuck in a trench up to his middle in water and spends a few months in that trench, though he may have had no idea of having latent consumption or rheumatics, or anything of that kind, he becomes a physical wreck. He comes home, and then, if you please, these medical men are put on to inquire into his medical history and that of his family, and they ascertan perhaps that his father or mother died of consumption, or that he had had rheumatics at some time in his life, and if that be so he is not entitled to a pension. I say again to my right hon. Friend that that is a simple evasion. I use a stronger word, and I say it is a scandalous evasion of the mandate given to the Department by the Committee last year, and which has been evaded by the charter, or whatever you may call it, of the 12th August last. I hope I have not hurt the feelings of my right hon. Friend. I do not blame him. I blame whoever is responsible for having drawn up that document which got the Royal Assent on the 12th August. I want to know who did it?
§ Mr. W. THORNEThe Crown lawyers.
§ Mr. BARNESI want to know what right they have to go behind the back of Parliament and concoct a document in which so many men have been denied of that which they were led to expect? There is a great deal more in connection with this matter which might be dealt with, and which I hope will be dealt with on another occasion. There is the question of appeal against these Departmental decisions. Why should these Departments, behind the back of Parliament, concoct these documents which are so obviously against what was expected and demanded of them? Why should they stick themselves up and assume themselves to be the State and have no appeal against their decisions? The very fact of their having concocted these documents, so obviously against the mandate, seems to me to be proof of the need for appeal 1456 against their authority. I believe the Committee had that in mind also. However, that may be raised on another occasion. At present I content myself with seconding the Motion, and expressing the urgent hope that we shall have a far different and far better reply from the Admiralty than we had a few weeks ago from the Army. If not, I can only say this, not by way of threat or anything of that sort, but as a simple statement of fact, that if something is not done I will advise all my friends to use the votes of this House, and to use anything else, to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEI rise to support the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Gorton and so ably seconded by the right hon. Member for Blackfriars. This is not the first time I have had the privilege of supporting a Motion of this character. Three years ago, I think it was, I moved an Amendment to the Naval Estimates very much on the same lines as that now moved by the hon. Member for Gorton, and I remember that the right hon. Member for Blackfriars was most anxious on that occasion to second my Motion. To-night he has had the opportunity of seconding a Motion which perhaps may have a more practical issue. At any rate, on this occasion I feel certain that the Motion will have the support of all the hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side, although on the occasion to which I refer I was not so fortunate in obtaining that support. Let us for a moment go back to the appointment of the Select Committee to which the right hon. Member for Blackfriars has referred. That Select Committee was appointed, I think, on the suggestion of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the reference to the Committee was as follows:
To consider a scheme of pensions and grants for officers and men in the Naval and Military Services, disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War, and for the widows, orphans and dependants of officers and men who have lost their lives, and whether the existing scheme of separation allowances to wives, children and dependants should be amended.When the House were considering the question of the reference to the Committee the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) suggested that the reference, which at that time in its original form made no mention of disease, should include the word "disease" and also that words should be added to this effect, that 1457 the disease should be any disease contracted during the present War. This suggestion did not meet with the views of the Prime Minister, who suggested an alteration, so as to make the words read: "Arising out of the present War." These words were ultimately inserted in the reference, which, as the right hon. Member for Blackfriars has pointed out, clearly stipulates that it is "disease arising out of the present War." What we want to know is, Whether or not men who are suffering from disease arising out of the present War are or are not entitled to pensions? Apparently some men are entitled to pensions while other men are not entitled to pensions. When the Report of this Select Committee was before the House of Commons, if I remember rightly, it was received with acclamation. Every hon. Member agreed with the proposals which were made and it was unanimously thought that these proposals would be carried out. There was no Act of Parliament confirming this Report. The Report itself passed from the House of Commons into the hands of the authorities of the Admiralty and the War Office. Royal Warrants were made out which interpreted the views of this Report, but the interpretation of the words "disease arising out of the present War" was that these men were qualified for naval or military pensions if the disability, sickness, disease, or injury was due to the men's service. That may be a very correct view taken by the gentlemen who drew out the Royal Warrant, but I submit that that was not the view of this House. At any rate, it was not my view; it was not the view of the Proposer of this Amendment, and it was not the view of the Seconder, and I doubt very much whether it was the view of any hon. Member now sitting in the House.What happens under this Royal Warrant? The man is invalided out of the Service and is examined by a medical board. The medical board certifies whether the disease is due to the Service or not. It is a purely arbitrary decision on the part of the board, the composition of which, no one exactly knows. If the board decides that the man's injury or disease is due to the Service then he gets a pension; but if the board decides that the injury or disease is not due to the Service, then he gets no pension. In fact, the whole decision rests with the board, with the composition of which we are unacquainted. I admit that there is an appeal, but what happens on appeal? We were 1458 told by the Financial Secretary to the War Office the other night that these appeals were always very sympathetically considered. I know we shall be told the same thing by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. No one doubts the sympathy of the Financial Secretary to the War Office or the Secretary to the Admiralty, but what we want to see is something more definite than a Court of Appeal of which no one in this House knows anything. We are told that because the Royal Warrant may preclude a certain number of sailors who ought to receive pensions, that therefore a Statutory Committee has been set up. Is that so? Let us look at the Bill which set up the Statutory Committee. What does it say? It is an Act
to make better provision as to pensions, grants and allowances made in respect of the present War to officers and men in the Naval and Military services of His Majesty and their dependants, and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War, and for purposes connected therewith.It says nothing whatever about the Royal Warrant or of pensions that do not come within the purview of the Royal Warrant. This Statutory Committee was set up for an entirely different purpose. It was fully debated in the House, and I cannot remember one single reference to any Royal Warrant or to any pensions that did not come within the four corners of the Royal Warrant. Therefore, when we are told by the Financial Secretary to the War Office that the cases which do not come under the Royal Warrant come within the purview of this Act, I venture to say that the Financial Secretary to the War Office is incorrect, and I trust that when the Secretary to the Admiralty replies he will not make the same mistake. I would like to suggest that when these men are discharged without pension that at any rate for the time being, while the question of pension is being considered, they should receive the pay and allowance to which they have been entitled while they have been in the Service, and that this should be continued until the question of pension has been definitely decided. That is only a suggestion, and it does not affect the question of the pension itself, but it does help the man to get over a time which is very difficult for himself and his family. A Noble Lord in another place stated the other day that some of these men did not try to get employment. I have brought this matter before the attention of the House over and over again, and I say that it is not possible for a man who is suffering from some disease or from some wound to get employment, 1459 because the employer cannot be sure of the man, and, therefore, he will not give him employment. That is a matter that will have to be considered after the War, and I think it ought to be considered now. The Employers' Liability Act must be amended in order that the employer may give work to these men. The kind of men who are invalided out of the Service for disease are men who are suffering from rheumatism and consumption, or who have the seeds of consumption in them, or from some disease of that character. As the right hon. Member for Blackfriars has stated, and as I myself stated the other night when we were debating this point, a man who has the seeds of consumption in him may go for a very long time without developing consumption if he sits at home, if he goes to a warm bed at night, and if he is well cared for and well looked after by his family. But if he is put into the North Sea and has to stand the hardship of two winters there, and at the end of the second year is invalided out of the service for consumption, I submit that it is a very strong thing to say that that man should not have a pension because he happens to have the seeds of consumption.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAHear, hear!
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEI am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman cheer, because I feel certain that when he gets up to answer he will at once say that every man who has served his country in any capacity on any of His Majesty's ships, whether a battleship, a trawler, or a mine - sweeper, shall not be allowed to suffer in his pension, and that in the event of his death his wife shall have a pension and a proper allowance for the children. That is what we want to hear. We do not want any longer to have these men turned practically upon the streets. There was a case referred to to-day which is a military matter, but it might equally well happen in the case of the Navy. The Financial Secretary shakes his head. I dare say it would not happen in the Navy, but that is the case of an unfortunate man invalided out of the Army who is dying in the workhouse at this moment, and this man has got no pension. In spite of what the Financial Secretary says, that might happen also in the Navy. I have known cases, not since the War, but before the War. I have brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice cases of men who have been invalided out of the Service in similar 1460 circumstances who have been placed very near the workhouse owing to the fact that they have got no pension at all, the reason being that this Very strange medical board has insisted upon saying that the disease from which they suffered was not contracted while in the Service. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty to let us know to-day that it is the view of His Majesty's Government that these scandals should no longer exist, and that men who have served their country on the sea or in the trenches shall be awarded the pensions which are their due, and that their wives and children shall have those pensions and allowances which are freely given in the case of other sailors and other soldiers.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAUnder the Rules of the House, I must confine myself to replying to the Motion which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), but, of course, the First Lord and myself have taken note of the matters which have been raised since his speech in introducing his Motion to the House, and opportunity will no doubt offer to-morrow, on the further progress of Votes A and 1, to make reply to such of those matters as seem to call for reply. Meantime we cannot be better employed than in considering our treatment of the gallant men to whom the First Lord earlier in the day paid so well merited a tribute. I turn, therefore, to the question of ineligibility for disablement pensions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Black-friars (Mr. Barnes) pointed out, by Resolution of the House on 18th November, 1914, a Select Committee was appointed on Naval and Military Services, Pensions and Grants, but, as he pointed out, the point under discussion, the terms of the reference adopted by the House, were as follows:
To consider a scheme of pensions and grants for officers and men in the Naval and Military Services disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War.There are other matters in the terms of reference, but they are not relevant to this particular point, and therefore I do not quote them. Now, the Select Committee issued a Special Report, which was printed by Order of the House on the 14th April, 1915, and that Special Report of the Select Committee, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars was a member, made a number of recommendations as to the amount of disability pensions and allowances, both for total and partial disablement, but they did not, on 1461 the question of eligibility, do more than rehearse in the preamble to the Special Report the terms of reference of the House of Commons to the Select Committee, which I have read. No doubt the Select Committee intended that these proposals for disablement pensions and allowances should apply according to the circumstances of the case to "men," in the wording of the reference, and the introduction to their own Report.disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War.There is no doubt about that, but there is nothing about eligibility. The matter, I think, was discussed with heads of Departments by the Select Committee, though I think there is nothing in the Report. But following that we get the Army Warrant.
§ Mr. BARNESI do not care to interrupt, but I do not want to be put in the position of being in any way responsible for the warrant of the Admiralty or for the warrant of the Army.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAVery well. No doubt the Select Committee, in the terms of the reference of the House of Commons, desired, according to the circumstances of the case, that assistance should be rendered to men disabled in the Army or Navy by wounds or disease arising out of the present War. My recollection is that there was some discussion with the heads of Departments as to the Departmental administration, but there is nothing in the Report and I do not make a point of it. At any rate the Army Warrant which authorised the administrative procedure is dated the 21st May, 1915, and I am sorry that it has got about that it is a document of a very antiquated type.
§ Mr. BARNESIt is only recopied.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThese are the relevant words:
A European soldier discharged in consequence of the present War as unfit for further service on account of wounds or injuries or sunstroke received in action or in the performance of military duty, or on account of blindness caused by military service or of disease due directly or wholly to war service,and so on. That is the Army Warrant. Now I come to the Admiralty Order in Council, which is dated the 12th August, 1915. This is our memorial:We beg leave humbly to recommend that your Majesty may be graciously pleased by your Order in Council to sanction the award of pension to any seaman or marine discharged from further service on account of injury received, or disease Contracted, directly on account of service during the War.
§ Mr. BARNESThese are different words.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes. The Army Warrant is a matter for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. The words which we use in our Order in Council, namely,
injury received, or disease contracted, directly on account of service during the War,are perhaps a little more restricted, at any rate a little more precise in letter, than the phrase of the Select Committee's reference,disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War.But whether that be so or not I am entitled to say, and I do say, that in administration we have lived fully up to the intention and purpose of the Select Committee, and I challenge contradiction on that point. I have already described our procedure, but I think it worth while repeating. A man is examined by a medical board, who give a decision as to whether that man's condition is or is not attributable to service. Their report is reviewed by the Medical Department of the Admiralty. We are a small family. As the House heard earlier in the day, we are asking in our Estimate that we shall be entitled to have 350,000 officers and men. That number has not been reached yet. Therefore we are a small family, and all these things can be settled under one roof in the offices of the Admiralty. Therefore we are in a position to review the verdict of the medical board. If to the Medical Department there appears to be any doubt as to the decision, the man's medical history is very carefully gone into, and often the man is re-examined at the instance of the central authority under the one roof to which I have referred, and the final verdict is not infrequently a reversal in favour of the man of the previous decision which has been given. The papers after review at the centre by the Medical Director-General and his staff go to the Accountant-General of the Navy. They are again examined, and if it is felt in that Department that any material facts may not have been considered by the Medical Department, or if any fresh evidence has been brought forward, then again in that case it is referred back to the Medical Department; and further, if, after all that, if after the man has been informed of the decision and it is unfavourable, and he feels aggrieved and appeals, the case is re-examined again in the light 1463 of any circumstances which may be indicated by him, or on his behalf, and no case is finally settled if any fresh evidence can be obtained.8.0 P.M.
I do say so far as these men are concerned that the man whose case is under consideration by us does get every chance, and his case receives most careful consideration, and where there is any doubt—I use the phrase of my hon. Friend who moved the Motion—he gets the benefit of that doubt. I cannot speak too highly of the great pains taken, and the great sympathy always shown by the medical Director-General and his staff at the centre, and by the Accountant-General of the Navy, Sir Alfred Eyles, and his most able staff of asistants in dealing with the matter now under discussion and all matters affecting sailors and their dependants—Mr. Sarel, Mr. Sanger, Mr. Bruce, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Cunison. I cannot speak too highly of the way in which they examine cases. I heard the word "scandal" mentioned once or twice to-night. If there is one thing about which I am thin-skinned?—I hope that I may be allowed to be thin-skinned about one thing, if not more—it is that idea that we are not treating these men with consideration I shall never be thick-skinned about that. I can stand with complete equanimity all sorts of criticism as to administrative failure, but I confess that I never hear in discussion that we are treating these men with want of consideration without being upset, because, though it may be true that in certain cases, on account of lack of knowledge or lack of information, a proper verdict has not been given and full justice and sympathetic treatment accorded, it is not true in respect of our intention. Generally I would repeat what I am afraid I have said too often now, that as regards the separation allowances to wives and children, the allowances to other relatives, the pensions to widows and orphans, the pensions to soldiers and sailors partially or totally disabled, and as regards pensions and grants to disabled officers and officers' widows, orphans and dependants, the provision made by the State to-day is out of all relation to anything which this country has done in wars in the past, and certainly I should say—and I speak with an intimate knowledge of this problem, which is one which is with me every day, and I am glad of the opportunity that it should be so—that for comprehensiveness and liberality it 1464 would be rather difficult to find anything approaching it in the world. Nevertheless, it must be confessed, and I admit it, that after an examination of some cases, the men are refused assistance, when they are invalided out of the Service. That is why this discussion is raised, and most properly raised, and I repeat that we could not be better employed than in seeing that there is an examination of every case in which defenders of the country are concerned. What sort of cases are refused? In the first place, there are cases, not many, happily, of breakdown which is entirely due to a man's own misconduct. These are not in issue, and we need not further refer to them. In the second place, we are discussing cases of men in the Army and Navy who break down after a short period of service because they were liable to disease, the disease being so latent as to be only discernible with the greatest difficulty, or which might have been passed as the result of the enormous number who had to be examined in a very short space of time, particularly so far as the Army is concerned, and where the medical examination was perhaps not so thorough as might have been desirable. This point of medical examination has a very considerable bearing upon the problem relating to the obligation of the State. First of all, it does not matter how thorough the medical examination may be, there are some cases in which an early breakdown occurs owing to undue pressure. For instance, a medical examiner may have to deal with cases where there is aneurism of the aorta in its early stages, or cases of tuberculosis, of kidney disease, of functional heart cases, of organic heart diseases, of certain nervous diseases, all in the early stages. These kind of cases may have got through when undoubtedly a more thorough medical examination—I hope in the circumstances everything was done that time and opportunity permitted in the cases to which I refer—would have prevented a great many of the cases which have aroused public sympathy from arising at all.
As to the qualifications of the medical examiner and his relationship to the person examined, the provisional medical examination for the Navy is carried out by our surgeons and agents, and other civil practitioners. Our final medical examinations are carried out by officers 1465 who are all naval officers, and certain surgeons and agents are specially appointed. In regard to the fee, the idea seems to have grown up in some quarters that it is to the financial interest of the examiner to approve a recruit as fit. That is not the case, and even if it were I must not be supposed to suggest that for the sake of an increased fee the medical profession would lend itself to the passing into the armed Forces of the Crown unfit men. The fee for the provisional examination is half-a-crown, and for the final examination made by an altogether different person in another place it is also half-a-crown. The suggestion which has been made could not, therefore, arise. In some cases, in regard to the difficulty of detecting latent susceptibilties to disease, very often results in a man being invalided from the Service directly the strain of training or of life in the Fleet or in the trenches begins to tell upon him. In all such cases as that we hold the balance fairly and squarely between the individual on the one hand and the public purse on the other. Let me say how broadly we draw the line, and I think ought to draw it. Supposing a man anxious to serve his country has dodged the eyesight test, and that is not at all an uncommon thing, or supposing he is found when sent to a depot to be "kitted" up, to be defective in sight or in colour vision, or that he is subject to epileptic fits, or has varicose veins, or is flat-footed, such a man is unfit for service and never ought to have entered it, and is discharged into private life. Are you to say that because of his error in entering the Service therefore he is to have a life pension? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am anxious to carry the House with me as far as I can, and I am glad to find that is not suggested. On the other hand, suppose we got a man rather delicate in constitution. He may be susceptible to chest complaint; he may have the germs of pulmonary affection in his system before he enters either the Army or the Navy. Are you to necessarily say that because the disease was not literally contracted in the Service therefore he is to get no assistance?
In my judgment that would be most unfair, because as has been so well put, if the man had been employed in civil life he might have been in fairly good health and continued a wage earner and gone on working for ten or fifteen years longer; but, having been submitted to the greater rigours of training under the present rapid 1466 conditions which obtain—and certainly if he had been sent to sea or to the trenches—the latent disease becomes so developed and aggravated by the unaccustomed strain that he breaks down and becomes a burden to himself and his family. Certainly that whatever may be the precise terms of the Army Warrant or of the Navy Order in Council, I have no doubt that in equity and justice something is due from us to that man. The Navy Order in Council is confined to cases of disease contracted directly on account of his service, and undoubtedly we have given a very liberal interpretation of the word "contracted" in our administration. However, I may say that in reference to this there have been communications between the Statutory Body under the Naval and Military Pensions Act, and as the result of those communications we have agreed to furnish on request full reports on the facts of any case, including the findings of our medical advisers, and to consider sympathetically representations made by the Committee upon cases in which either a pension from public funds has been refused, where in the opinion of the Committee one might reasonably have been accorded, or a pension has been awarded at a rate less than the maximum under a Navy Order in Council, and less than that which to the Committee may appear appropriate. We are prepared to accept knowledge or information about cases from whatever source we can get it, and to consider sympathetically any representations made by the Committee as to whether or not a pension could be reasonably awarded in any particular case under our administration of the Navy Order in Council. While we cannot divest ourselves of the ultimate responsibility in this matter, either for the award of a pension or the Settlement of its amount when paid out of the Navy Votes, I think it will be agreed that the procedure I have indicated is such as to secure that every case of hardship will be thoroughly investigated. But I admit that for future guidance it might be desirable to add a few words to those words which confine the assistance under both the Army Warrant and the Navy Order in Council to disease "contracted in the Service," and it is suggested that there should be added to those words the further words, "or aggravated by the Service." We are in full consultation with the Treasury as to the desirableness of inserting those words both in the Army 1467 Warrant and the Navy Order in Council. If you included those additional words, you really ought to consider whether it would mean giving the full amount of disablement allowance in those cases.
§ Mr. WARDLEDo you mean as regards time?
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo, I mean as regards the full twenty-five shillings of amount which is fixed by the Select Committee. If you extend the Army Warrant and the Navy Order in Council definitely to include cases of disease not contracted in but aggravated by service, you have to consider whether in those cases equity and fair play demand the full disablement allowance fixed by the Select Committee. Under the recommendations of the Select Committee, if the man is totally disabled he has got to get 25s. per week and 2s. 6d. for each child of pensionable age. That is for the lowest rank. If he is partially disabled he has got to get such a proportion of 25s. per week as will "with the wages he may be deemed to be capable of earning" amount to 25s. per week, plus a sum not exceeding 2s. 6d. for each child. Those scales must, of course, stand for disablement for wounds or disease contracted directly on account of war service. But if you add "aggravated by" war service you want, I think, to consider whether, since State service is not in such a case wholly responsible for the breakdown, some lower scale for total and partial disablement in such case would not be fair and equitable. I therefore give the House this assurance that I shall at once go into the matter, and I think I can say the same with respect to the Army Warrant, with a view to fair, just, and sympathetic treatment.
§ Mr. MORTONWhat about those who have been discharged?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAMy hon. Friend wants me to make this retrospective, but I cannot give any undertaking with regard to that.
§ Mr. MORTONYou have discharged some men, and then you make use of that fact to refuse to give them any allowance because they have been discharged. I quite agree with the other matter suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but cannot he not cover this also, which is very serious?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAMy hon. Friend did not hear the whole of the discussion. I am asked what about those discharged. Obviously I can give no assurance with regard to that. I will consider it, but I cannot go beyond that. I think, after the assurance I have given, I may now appeal to the House to permit the Motion "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and then we can go into Committee and, if necessary, continue the general discussion. The general Debate can be continued tomorrow on the Report stage. I would ask my hon. Friend if he can see his way to withdraw his Motion, so that we may proceed to discuss the Estimates in Committee.
§ Mr. RAFFANCan the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the case of accidents, when a man does not happen to be on duty, and can he make any concession on that matter?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI hope I shall not be pressed on particular cases. I am very loath by a single word to raise hopes which cannot be realised. If my hon. Friend will communicate with me personally I will see what can be done, though I give no assurance of any kind.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEWould the right hon. Gentleman answer my suggestion that some allowance should be made to the men pending decisions regarding their pensions?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI understand with regard to the War Office the practice is to get the matter settled definitely out of hand, that is to get the question settled as to whether the man is entitled to a pension or not, so that there is nothing due to him after he has left. I understand my hon. Friend's point is that a man is kept some time before he gets his pension, and that in the interval he gets nothing at all. That is obviously a branch of Army administration, and as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary hears the point no doubt he will take note of it.
§ Mr. WARDLEWe do not desire to prolong the discussion to any extent. We all recognise that the Admiralty do approach these questions in an extremely sympathetic way. I myself have had a good deal of experience with regard to another part of this great problem, and I have always found the Navy in these matters extremely sympathetic and inclined to go the whole length of the powers they possess, if not beyond them. 1469 Therefore we have not pressed the point so strongly to-day on the Navy Vote as if this had been an Army Vote. May I just point out that the fact that the Army Warrant is not a pre-historic document, and that the Admiralty Order in Council is not either, since both appeared after the recommendation to the Committee, and that fact is rather against the Army and the Navy, because the position which the Army and Navy have taken up is to define much more closely and much more rigidly than the Select Committee which inquired into this question, the terms upon which pensions should be given. It is perfectly true there is a difference between the two. The Navy is still, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, somewhat restricted as the Order stands at the present moment, but the Army is very much more restricted. Therefore we feel that we have done quite right in raising the whole question of these warrants, as they define more rigidly than the Select Committee did the conditions under which pensions should be given. With regard to the proposal for reform which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, it certainly goes part of, or I may say a good deal of the way. But I should like to point out that if the disease is "aggravated by" the Army or the Navy, that may mean that the seeds of disease are much more quickly brought out, and that a man may be broken down in a few months where otherwise it might have taken five or ten years. The man has got to be kept somehow, and the same applies to his wife and children. If provision is not made through the State, that is by the Army or the Navy, very probably you will throw the man and those dependent on him on to the parochial authorities.
§ Mr. WARDLEOr, as my hon. Friend says, on to the approved societies or on to some other charitable institution. As the question has to be met, it seems to us that it is far better to meet it in the first instance as adequately as possible rather than to shift the burden elsewhere. As to the question of amount, I am afraid my Friends and I cannot give any very definite reply to-night to the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has thrown out. We should like to consider the matter a little more before we accept the suggestion. I am glad to say that in consequence of the more sympathetic 1470 treatment we have received on this occasion, we are prepared willingly to withdraw the Motion, and glad to have the assurance that this whole problem will be once again considered with a view to a satisfactory conclusion.
§ Mr. CLYNESIf the suggestion that the Amendment should be withdrawn had been acted upon immediately I think it would have been interpreted as consenting on our part to the course which it is now suggested should be taken in future by the Departments in these cases. I want if I can to strengthen the statement just made that we cannot accept the proposal in its present form as in any way closing our appeal in regard to these cases. I would like particularly to press the necessity—as I assume some modification will take place—for again considering the cases of men who have had their allowances or pensions refused. There is certainly strong grounds for demanding that there should be retrospective treatment in regard to these men. I think we ought to be told more clearly who is responsible for the framing of the terms of these warrants.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAAs far as the Navy Order in Council is concerned, I am certainly responsible.
§ Mr. CLYNESThen we may take it that those who are the more active representatives of the Departments in this House are themselves responsible for the terms of these warrants. That is a very useful declaration, as it enables us to press with all the more persistence for a change in the wording of these documents. I agree with my hon. Friend that in the cases dealt with the heads of the Departments have acted up to the terms of the warrants. We are not complaining of their treatment of the cases within the terms of the warrants. They have in some cases even stretched a point in favour of certain men who might have been rather badly dealt with had the cold terms of the warrants been strictly adhered to. The necessity of altering the terms of the warrants has been strengthened by the declarations which have been made. I think it will be found that all my Friends on these benches, and probably the whole of the House, will be disinclined to consent to any lower scale of pay for men whose ailments or diseases are aggravated by any form of naval or military service. I see no reason whatever why there should 1471 be any differential treatment. There could be no great saving to the country, and there would certainly be a very keen sense of hardship in the case of those who were paid on a lower scale because their diseases or ailments were aggravated by a form of service which is practically forced on a large number of men under existing conditions. If we are asked to say on what conditions we might consent to a man not receiving a pension, we go back to the general position in industrial and civil life. Soldiers and sailors to-day are as much in the employ of the State as engineers, labourers, or any other employés in any trade or business are in the service of their employers, and the law of the country has imposed on all employers the obligation to pay compensation, and generally speaking it may be admitted ample compensation, as compared with the condition of things that existed some twenty or thirty years ago. The only occasion upon which an employer can escape the payment of compensation is when he can prove that the disability suffered by the workman was due to the workman's own serious and wilful misconduct. I think that is a condition that might fairly be accepted by the State itself in respect of the services of its soldiers and sailors. There is no item in the great bill of this War that the country should be more ready to pay than that of pensions to its disabled soldiers and sailors. We have made some headway by the discussion to-night, and the Amendment may well be withdrawn on the understanding that we shall have some later opportunity of finally settling upon what the House may think to be the fair treatment of these men.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ Sir T. ESMONDEI wish to refer to the question of the pay of midshipmen in the Navy. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would prefer that you, Sir, should now leave the Chair, I will give way.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIf the House agrees to the Motion, and we go into Committee, I think you, Sir, will agree that on Votes A and 1 the Rules of the House permit a continuance of the general discussion.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)On Vote A it is certainly the case that the discussion can travel over equally wide ground.
§ Mr. HOHLERI wish to speak on questions affecting the Navy, and I submit that it is not in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to close the discussion at this point.
§ Sir T. ESMONDEI will resume my remarks when we get into Committee.
§ Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.