MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

HC Deb 06 March 1917 vol 91 cc241-354

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916."

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes)

I would like to associate myself, if I may, with what was stated by the Leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) and the late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) in regard to the services of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on the Statutory Committee. It was my honour to sit on that Committee for a year, and I know the keen interest which His Royal Highness took in our work, and I know with what pride he was looking forward to a more happy time when he would have an opportunity of taking a larger part in it. I regret that that has been denied him, but I hope that the experience which he gained will be a happy memory to him, and will be of service to him in the high position which he is destined to fill.

It is my lot to be called upon to-day to give some account of the Ministry of Pensions since it was brought into existence last December, and to explain so far as may be necessary the Royal Warrant, and the Order in Council, which have been already laid upon the Table. Before I say anything about the Warrant, I want to speak for a little while on the question of the care and welfare of disabled men. It is a question which is a very important one, and I am sorry to say a difficult one, and it is the most backward part of the work of the Pensions Ministry. I do not wish to say that in any sense of blaming anybody, because when War overtook us we were more or less unprepared in that connection as well as in others. The first thing to be done was necessarily to look after the actual daily needs of the widows, children, wives, and disabled men themselves. Therefore, as the House will remember, provision was made, and I think I may say made on a scale of pensions more generous than anything that had been dreamt of up to that time.

But a pension is not everything, and in many cases a pension is not the main thing. There are men who have to be dealt with as a result of this War, who, in spite of anything that may be done for them in the way of pension, will find they will never be restored to their old conditions as long as they live. A pension in a case like that seems to be like giving an old friend 1s. to get rid of him instead of putting him in a position to earn 2s., which is really what he needs. The work in the beginning was done largely by a number of voluntary agencies, the Government being at the time preoccupied in waging the War. It is only right to acknowledge the splendid zeal and disinterestedness of those agencies, and if I say a word about two or three of them I hope that it will not be thought that the omission of others is any slight upon them. I simply mention some as representative of all. In the first place, I want to mention one which, I think, is perhaps more complete than any other—that is the splendid provision made at St. Dunstans for the men blinded in the War. As is well known, Sir Arthur Pearson lives himself in a world of darkness, but that has not quenched his extraordinary energy which he has thrown into the relief of his fellow sufferers. Some 600 men have been blinded in the War. So far, 210 of them, I think, have already passed through St. Dunstans. Three hundred are still there, and 100 others are to follow. Everything possible is done for them. In the first place, they are rushed through that period of depression which inevitably comes to all of them. After that they are put to basket making, and other industries that may suit them best, so as to fit them for occupation afterwards.

In the next place, I would like to say a word about the Star and Garter, which is under the direction of Sir Frederick Treves, and is intended for the benefit of paralytics. They are not many—about 64 are there now, and there may be 600 altogether in the country. I think all that medical and scientific skill can do for those men is being done at the Star and Garter, so as to make their few remaining years of life as tolerable as possible. Then there is the hospital at Roehampton, managed by a Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport is a member. That hospital deals with limbless men. Their artificial limbs are of course paid for by the Government, but the hospital was started by a voluntary agency. Capital expenditure was incurred by that voluntary agency. Some 6,070 men have already passed through, and 1,260 have been trained for new occupations, being unable to follow the occupations which they followed before the War. Positions have been found for those 1,260, and the remainder have been looked after in other ways. Then there, is the hospital for orthopædic cases at St. Helens. There is also a Scottish agency in Glasgow, which is an agency for dealing with limbless men, and has collected about £150,000. There is also the English and Scottish Red Cross Societies and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Aid Society. These societies, as hon. Members know, have been everywhere where good work had to be done. Last of all, I ought to mention the Soldiers' Help Society, which started the Lord Roberts Workshops, which has provided employment for a great number of men. There is also the Statutory Committee, to which I was proud to belong, and which has done very good work in spreading the network of local agencies all over the country connecting them with local administrative authorities.

It was the duty of the Ministry of Pensions to get in touch with all the agencies, and to build up from the foundations which they have laid. I have been trying to do so. I have been trying to straighten out tangles, connect various threads, and, generally speaking, harness helpful experience, so as to attain the maximum of result with the minimum of friction. Bearing those considerations in mind, I have sanctioned the setting up of a Committee to deal in the first place with the most hapless cases, and those are the cases of the totally disabled men who require institutional treatment. That Committee is presided over by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen). It is a Committee consisting of four. Sir Walter Lawrence represents the War Office, and there are also Mr. Cyril Jackson, of the Statutory Committee, and the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Stanley), representing the Red Cross Society. There is also Sir Harry Haward, who will give the benefit of his great knowledge of finance as finance adviser, but the Committee will consist of four. It will be responsible to the Ministry of Pensions and will report to the Ministry of Pensions. We have been successful in obtaining the services of some eminent doctors—I suppose the most eminent in their walks of life. They include Sir John Colley for neurasthenics, Dr. Fox Symonds for epeleptics, Dr. Hubert Bond for paraplegics, and Dr. Hartley for tuberculosis. We intend as far as we can to provide institutional treatment for all these totally disabled men. Most of them are men who will not recover, but some of them, such as the neurasthenics, will recover and take their places in the life of the community.

Mr. HOGGE

Will there be new institutions?

Mr. BARNES

Yes. At present there are practically no institutions of this sort. We intend to avail ourselves of the help as well as of the experience of the Red Cross Society. The Red Cross Society has already become the agent of the War Office, and is at this moment managing, I suppose, some 1,200 or 1,400 military hospitals. Those hospitals were taken over by the Government from the various people who had them before the War. They were commandeered for national purposes. The Red Cross Society is managing them, and is getting a certain standard sum for that purpose to cover maintenance, and we intend to avail ourselves of the help and the experience of the Red Cross Society in the same way. We have already started one place at Golder's Green, and Sir John Colley is at this moment collecting the men to put in it. We intend to have about 100 neurasthenics in Golder's Green. We shall dilute them with about twenty orthopædic convalescent cases, soldiers and sailors who have lost their limbs, who we hope will cheer up these neurasthenics and be as good as a tonic to them. It is only right that I should say a word of tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Duncan) When we got wind of this place, which we did through Mr. Cyril Jackson, we found that the hon. Member for Barrow had bought the place for the purposes of his union. I went and saw him. I might have invoked the Defence of the Realm Act, but I did not. I preferred to appeal to his good sense and his desire to help, and I asked him to hand this place over to us. He explained the difficulties. I went to the hon. Member for Ormskirk, and asked him could ho supply an alternative place. He gave me a list of places, but none of them were suitable, but he undertook to get a place, and he has got a place. But I think it only right to mention this, as it is due to the hon. Member for Barrow to acknowledge his help in providing this place for the Ministry of Pensions. We are also providing a place at Chalfont St. Giles for epileptics. We find a difficulty in getting building material, but as soon as ever we can get it we shall have all these places for the institutional treatment of totally disabled men in operation as speedily as we possibly can.

Just a few words with regard to other disabled men and the method of separating them and dealing with them appropriately. Three months ago there were several controversies as to the precise lines of demarcation between Government Departments and other bodies, and these stood in the way of getting on with these matters. For instance, there was a controversy as to the precise time at which a man should be discharged from the military hospital. It had been urged upon the War Office that the Army authorities should keep the wounded or disabled men until they were absolutely cured or pronounced incurable. That was a very attractive view, and I believed myself at one time that that was the right thing to do. I must say that experience has since considerably modified my view. I now believe that men have been kept in the hospitals so long that their recovery has been actually delayed, and I am not sure that men in some cases have not been kept in the hospitals so long that recovery has been prevented. The sight of suffering, the depression caused by hospital discipline, and all that sort of thing, goes against a man of nervous temperament, and prevents his getting well as rapidly as he might have done. In fact, there is no theory of perfection in this matter—at least, none is open to us that we can reduce to practical working. We must be guided by experience and the exigencies imposed upon us by the War.

With these considerations in mind, I went to see the Secretary of State for War on the 28th of last December. I put certain propositions to him, and I explained my difficulty. I said that men who had been discharged from the hospital were roaming about the country without being in contact with any authority or with the hospital they had left. I must say, so far as I am concerned, that I have had every help given to me by the Secretary of State for War, and also by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and by the Director-General of Medical Service. The Secretary of State for War and the Financial Secretary discussed the propositions with me on 28th December. They accepted them tentatively, and then we had a good deal of correspondence and further meetings about them, until they were reduced to an agreement, the heads of which I will give to the House. They are practically three. First of all, that the War Office should undertake to keep a man in the appropriate military hospital as an in-patient as long as there is accommodation for him, or can be made for him, and to treat him as an in-patient, by manual and other curative methods. Then, in the second place, they agreed that if a man had been invalided by the Invaliding Board as no longer fit to be a soldier, they would keep that man another three weeks, and during that three weeks facilities will be given to the local committee's representative to see the man and see the hospital authorities, and, generally speaking, that three weeks is intended to be a jumping-off period within which arrangements might be made for subsequent treatment either as an inpatient or an out-patient elsewhere. In the third place, as soon as a man is invalided a card is made out indicating the sort of treatment the man needs after he leaves, and a duplicate card is sent to the district committee in whose locality the man intends to reside. Each being armed with a card, by that means a man will no longer float about the country without being in contact with any body or authority or Department. Incidentally, the War Office agreed that when a man leaves a hospital as an in-patient they will treat him as an out-patient in the district to which he is going, and, if necessary, they will provide special treatment where that cannot be covered by the ordinary panel doctor. Therefore, hon. Members will see that this covers another point of controversy of last year—that is to say, the State pays for special treatment, and the expenditure will come upon the Army Votes.

Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS

Will that apply to the Navy?

Mr. BARNES

No, Sir. Another matter which was raised was the allocation of the burden of war sickness, as between the State and the approved societies. The controversy goes back to the time, of the Select Committee three years ago. It was decided that the man who was totally disabled was to be in receipt of a payment of 25s. and the approved societies were relieved of the payment of disablement benefit. Up to the end of last year there were only 3,800 men on total disablement pensions. Of course, the societies have had to pay in respect of men partially disabled and in respect of men discharged from the Army without pensions, and, they say, generally speaking, additional sickness payments which should be borne by the State. We met the representatives of the approved societies and the Insurance Commissioners, and we discussed several schemes whereby we might deal with this matter. I think we have now gone pretty far towards a true solution. Several of the schemes were rejected and then one was accepted, based on the State paying the difference between the average benefits paid before the War and after disablement. That, in principle, we accepted, so that there will be a reduction of the legitimate complaint of the approved societies during the last two or three years, and, so far as that complaint is justified in fact, it will be rectified, subject to Treasury sanction, which it now awaits.

I pass away from the question of the disabled men with one observation that will be of special interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. There is a general impression that we are a long way behind other countries in regard to disabled men. I do not think that is so. Every country has, more or less, had to face this difficulty unprepared; they have had to face it, using their distinctive machinery and in accordance with their own national habitudes. I have read the report of the hon. Member for Blackburn. I saw the statement in the newspapers last week that the Government were afraid to publish it because this country was so far behind France. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend shared that view, but that was the view expressed in the newspapers last week, and it is the view which has been expressed elsewhere, including this House, on many occasions. Let me say to the House—and I say it with some knowledge, having made it my business to go into what has been done here, in Belgium, in France, and elsewhere—that we are not so bad as we are painted. I believe we are abreast of some and ahead of others, and if, so far, we are not doing all that could be wished, then I can assure hon. Members that it is not for lack of will to take every opportunity of putting ourselves not only abreast but ahead of others. In regard to Belgium, I believe it is ahead, but, of course, the problem there is small compared with the case where 1,000,000 or more of men have to be dealt with. A conference on the subject has been called by Belgium, to be held at Paris, and we will be represented.

I want now to come to the Warrant. In the first place, I wish to say that it is not my Warrant, and I do so because it is due to others that I should state that it is a Warrant which has grown very largely out of the experience of the last two and a half years, and, apart from that, it is the result of many meetings of the Minister of Pensions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster), and others. It has also been contributed to and examined by a small Committee of the Cabinet, and, therefore, the House will see that it is a Warrant that emerges from the fiery ordeal of examination and criticism by many minds. Let me say, first of all, what the Warrant does not do. It does not deal with officers and nurses, but I can assure the House that, so far as officers and nurses are concerned, matters are pretty far advanced. Nor does the Warrant deal with men raised in other countries for the British Army, for instance, coloured men. It does not deal with service pensions except in the way of the preservation of rights. It deals with non commissioned officers and men of the Army, and also with the men of the Navy up to the rank of marine warrant officers. It takes in all men of the Army and Navy up to commissioned officers. We took over Chelsea on the 15th day of last month. I want to read a letter from the Commissioners of Chelsea to their own staff in Chelsea, and to associate myself with it. We took over from Chelsea a clean bill of health—that is to say, all the cases had been dealt with up to date, except a few Which had been sent back to the sources from which they came, for inquiries to be made. On the day before we took it over the Commissioners of Chelsea passed a resolution to the effect that as the greater part of the staff would be transferred from the next day to the Ministry of Pensions they desired to take the opportunity to convey to the staff their great appreciation of the zeal and energy shown in all Departments. At the commencement of the War, they continue; the staff of the office numbered twenty-one. It had now been expanded to 706. The number of letters received in 1913 was 31,408; the number posted, 47,870. In 1916 the number of letters received was 777,562, and the number posted 550,558. The number of first grants made was 190,550, and of renewals 118,353.

I read that to show the House that, after all that has been said about Chelsea, it will be observed that they had an immense expanding task to grapple with, and I think it is creditable to them that they were so up to date with it. I would just add a word as to the size of the task taken over from Chelsea. We took under our charge 140,275 disabled men, and 157,544 children of disabled men. Of widows we had 62,796, and of the children of these widows 123,194. The dependants of deceased men numbered 29,832, so that the total taken over was 518,741. There are a number of widows who have not yet reached the pension stage, because, as the House will remember, provision was made that they should continue on separation allowances for six months. Therefore I am only dealing with the widows up to last October. We have ascertained from the authorities how many widows are still waiting, and the number is about 25,000. There are also 65,000 men in hospital, and 65,000 men medically unfit now, so that our Warrant really covers 673,741 men, women and children, at least—in round figures, 700,000. That is our task, and it is a problem of considerable magnitude.

How do we propose to deal with it? I will take the Royal Warrant in its three main provisions, as set out in the document—disabled men and their children, widows and their children and dependants. Let me first dispose of the children of disabled men. Hon. Members will know that the old scale for the children of disabled men was 2s. 6d. weekly. That was for children of men totally disabled. We have dropped out the words "totally disabled," because we found it rather inapplicable to cases where highest pensions, were given without total disablement. But a man we described as totally disabled used to have 2s. 6d. for each child. He will now get 5s. for the first, 4s. 2d. for the second, 3s. 4d. for the third and 2s. 6d. for each after that—that is to say, if a man has four children he will get 15s. instead of 10s., or an increase of 50 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Up to what age?"] Up to sixteen years of age. Beyond sixteen years, if a boy is apprenticed on nominal wages, or if he is of weak mind or intellect, he is to be taken care of until he is twenty-one. We are proposing: rather odd amounts in 4s. 2d. and 3s. 4d., but, after all, the explanation is simple. Five shillings represents sixty, 4s. 2d. represents fifty, 3s. 4d. represents forty, and 2s. 6d. represents thirty pence, so, for the purpose of simplicity, we have adopted these items in the scale.

Let me dispose of two minor points first. With regard to the service pensions, hon. Members will know that for some extraordinary reason, which I at any rate cannot fathom, a man who had served in the Army before the War and had obtained a service pension cannot have it and disability pension arising out of the War as well. We consider that unfair; the man has earned his pension and we propose he should keep it, and therefore the men on the lower rate may have both a service pension and the disability pension.

Sir C. NICHOLSON

Is that retrospective?

Mr. BARNES

I should say so. The other point is in regard to eligibility. At present, as hon. Members know, there is a difference between a man's pension in regard to disease if the disease is attributable to or if it is aggravated by service. We propose to wipe that difference out, and in future if a man's disease is aggravated by service he will get his pension just the same as if it were attributable to-it or caused by it; and if it arises seven years after the War he will get a pension if it is clear that it has been substantially aggravated by the War. The word "substantially" is put in owing to the greater uncertainty on the point by lapse of time.

Now I come to the principal points. We propose to give a man a flat-rate pension, irrespective altogether of his earnings or his earning capacity—that is to say, a man will have a definite sum of money for a definite hurt, and, so far as the flat-rate pension is concerned, we shall make no inquiry as to what the man is earning or may earn. That will apply right up to his full pension. We have catalogued in a Schedule of the Royal Warrant the injuries for which men may get a definite pension. For the loss of two or more limbs the full 100 per cent. will be granted. A man will be put on the highest degree of disability pension in the event of losing two limbs, and then, according to in capacity, the pension diminishes down to SO per cent., 70 per cent., and so on. But in place of the flat-rate pension, in respect of which no inquiry will be made about earnings or earning capacity, the man may, if more advantageous to him, have an alternative pension, which will be based upon his pre-war earnings. If a man is put on highest pension, speaking generally, we shall not inquire in regard to his earnings or earning capacity. If a man is rendered blind he will get the full pension, both flat rate and alternative. If a man loses both legs or both arms, he also will get the full pension. But there are exceptional cases, such as the case of a man suffering from Jacksonian epilepsy, who is in the 100 per cent. category, but who, I am told, may be all right on ninety-nine days out of a hundred, and in a case of that sort it is fair we should have some regard to his earning capacity. A commercial traveller may be just as qualified to earn his living with one leg and one eye as if he had a pair of both. Therefore in these exceptional cases, in assessing the alternative pensions, if a man has full degree of disability pension, some inquiry may be made as to what he may be able to earn. But it will only be in exceptional cases. Generally speaking, a man's earning capacity will not be inquired into, except when it comes to a question of assessing the alternative pension for lower pensions than the 100 per cent.

Mr. HOGGE

Does this provision cancel the Statutory Committee's work?

Mr. BARNES

As a matter of fact, the provisions made under this Warrant pretty well absorb all the provisions made by the Statutory Committee, and therefore the. question of the Statutory Committee's power does not arise in a practical sense. The highest disability pension is based on pre-war earnings. A man can have a pension up to 27s. 6d. a week, and after that he may get something based on his pre-war earnings. It may be asked what is meant by pre-war earnings. We eliminate the word "income," and I want to emphasise that, because in eliminating that word we get away from a lot of meticulous calculations. A man may be a millionaire, but whatever his income may be it will have nothing to do with the calculation. We go back to his pre-war earnings and find out what the man had earned in the twelve months before the War, on the average, and we base our assessment of the alternative pension on that. There are, however, two exceptions, and these are in respect of apprentices and students, and in those cases prospective wages count. Take the case of an apprentice. When he went to the War he was earning £1 a week, but he was serving his apprenticeship to some trade or profession, and we propose to reckon his wage not at what he was actually receiving, but at the standard rate of wage of that trade or profession, whatever it may be. If the standard rate is £2, although he had been earning but £1 when he went to the War, his wage for the purpose of calculation will be taken as £2 a week. Similarly in regard to the student. We have a provision that on the top of 27s. 6d.—the highest flat-rate pension—the assessment of his disability pension will be 27s. 6d., plus 5s. for each completed year he had spent at the hospital or college or university, or wherever he was training for the occupation or profession. So that, if he had been three years at such a place, he would get 27s. 6d., plus three times 5s., or 42s. 6d. in all. The pensions will range from 27s. 6d. upwards. If a man's wages had been 50s., he will get the difference up to that amount, and half the excess over 50s. up to 100s., so that the man S highest disability pension may be 75s. per week, or anything down to 27s. 6d.

In addition to that there are allowances. If a man is in need of constant attendance he will have up to 20s. a week allotted to him for his wife or any other person to look after him and do what is necessary for him. With the allowance the amount will range from 47s. 6d. to 95s. But the pension proper will range from 27s. 6d. to 75s., according to circumstances. What are the circumstances? The circumstances, briefly, are his hurt and pre-war wages, that is all. Let me illustrate it in the simplest form. Supposing a man had 50s. a week before the War, and gets hurt in the highest degree of disability or of disease, he will get 27s. 6d. awarded to him right off without any inquiry at all. But he may also get up to 50s. There is 22s. 6d. to come to him in addition to his 27s. 6d. That is the man without children. Now let me take a man with four children. He gets 27s. 6d. just the same, but he gets 15s. for his four children, or a total of 42s. 6d., and there is only 7s. 6d. to make up. That is to say, the man with four children has exactly the same pension as the man with none. Now there may be objections raised here, and I may be asked why we should give the same pension to a man with no children as to a man with four children, and to that I must retort by asking the question, "Why have not we thought of that before?" A man in the industrial or commercial world, or even in the political world for that matter—if a man gets a job on this bench he gets a certain salary, and no question is asked as to how many children he has got. That is his business. Besides, if hon. Members will think of it, they will see that substantial justice is done after all, because the man who has got no children now may get them. Therefore substantial justice if done, and the principle is that we give a pension for service rendered, and not on account of the number of children a man may have.

Sir CHARLES SEELY

Will the 7s. 6d. be increased as the children grow up and as their allowances fall off?

Mr. BARNES

Yes, I think it will. I may say it will. Let us now take the man who is partly disabled. As I said before, we have a scale of moneys and a scale of hurts, 80 per cent., 70 per cent., 60 per cent., 50 per cent., and so on. We will take the 50 per cent. A man gets 50 per cent. of the highest degree of disablement pension if he loses half his leg or his left arm below the elbow or one eye; he gets 13s. 9d. Take the case of a man who was earning before the War 50s. without children. He gets 13s 9d. of his flat-rate pension; but supposing, on inquiry, we find that that man is capable of earning 20s.? Putting that to the 13s. 9d., we get 33s. 9d., so that he is entitled to 16s. 3d. to make him up to 50s. If he has four children he is entitled to half allowance for them, namely, 7s. 6d., which with the 13s. 9d. will make it 21s. 3d., and adding £1 that makes 41s. 3d., and the difference between that and 50s. is 8s. 9d. If a man had sufficient children to bring him up beyond 50s. there would be no alternative pension at all, but the man will be on a flat-rate pension, and, of course, will be better off.

I now come to treatment and training, and we are making two novel suggestions to the House in regard to treatment and training, one in regard to each. With regard to treatment, we are going to propose that a man shall be fined if he does not conform to the recommendations of the doctor, and I want to put it to the House that that provision has been borne in upon us as one that is absolutely necessary and justifiable under the circumstances. If the State agree to give a man a definite sum of money for a definite hurt, it has at least the right to ascertain by every means in its power what that hurt is. Take a man, for instance, having lost an eye and with a stiff arm. The man has a right to 13s. 9d. in respect of the loss of his eye, and he also has a right in respect to the further injury to his arm, but we find that in nine cases out of ten of stiff arms there is no permanent injury at all. A man may be in a hospital for nine or ten months, and his arm gets stiff in a particular position, and there is no reason in the world why he should not get his arm straightened out, except, perhaps, for lack of will power. In such a case, although a man has a right to a pension of 13s. 9d. in respect to his eye, we say, "You will only have half of it until you go through the treatment prescribed for you to straighten your arm."

Sir GEORGE TOULMIN

Will he have an opportunity of appeal, or will it be an arbitrary decision?

Mr. BARNES

I am afraid there is no right of appeal, except, of course, to this House, and the Minister, of course, has large powers, but let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall make it as easy as possible. We shall give him half his pension in any case and half his children's allowance, and we will also say, "We will make compliance as easy as possible. While you are undergoing this treatment we give you a full pension; if you are a married man we will give full separation allow- ances and allowances for your children, and we will give special fees that may have to be paid for you for treatment in a sanatorium or a hospital." Therefore it will be seen that while we shall penalise the man we shall make it as easy as possible for him and his family to comply with the conditions for his own good. So much for treatment.

I come to the opposite principle so far as training is concerned. A doctor or a board of doctors can tell you what is good for a man in the medical sense, but no board can tell you what a man can be trained for. There are more subtle considerations there, and no board can guarantee to a man that he is going to have a living in a particular trade even if he is trained for it, and therefore we adopt the opposite principle in this case. Instead of fining a man, we attract a man to training by additional inducements, and we shall say to a man who needs training, "We will give you a full pension, pay fees for you so far as special fees have to be paid, we will give your wife if you are married a full separation allowance and so on, and in addition to that, for the period during which you are undergoing training for a new occupation to increase your own usefulness as a member of the community, we will give you 5s. a week as a bonus at the end of that period." That is a curious combination of conciliation and coercion, but I commend it to the favourable consideration of the House as something that has been borne in upon us as absolutely necessary.

There are two deviations from the pensions of disabled men which I will mention. The case of a man under 20 per cent. of the highest disability it is proposed to deal with by way of a gratuity or temporary allowance, and these provisions which I have mentioned do not apply to such a man. Then there are the medically unfit, whose unfitness is neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, who have perhaps caused more contention than any other class of man during the last year or so. I do not know how many of them there are, but I am told there are over 100,000 altogether. It has been claimed that these men should be put on pension, and it has been argued very plausibly that inasmuch as the doctors have passed them in they are fit for service, and therefore for a pension.

Mr. HOGGE

And they are going to get it too.

Mr. BARNES

Well, they will not get it so far as I am concerned. I want to be quite frank with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and anybody else, and I wish to say that they will not get it while I am in the office. I know my own mind. These men have been passed into the-Army owing to the great pressure at which doctors had to work in the early days. Hundreds of them have been passed into the Army who should never have been passed in—veritable weeds, who ought never to have been there at all. Some of them concealed their ailments on being passed into the Army, and thousands of them did not do more than two or three days' service in the Army, and a great many of them were in hospital for the greater part of the time they spent in the Army. But after all, and allowing for all that, we must assume some responsibility, because the doctors have passed them in. We cannot get away from that. The measure of our responsibility is by no means anything like a pension for their lives, and I would like to put it to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), what will be thought by the man who comes back after the War is over, who has been in and out of the trenches for three or four years perhaps, who has weakened his health thereby, but who is not entitled to any pension—what will he think, coming back next year perhaps and finding that a man who has been in the Army for two or three days or months only is to be treated not equally but better than he?

Mr. HOGGE

He must be entitled to a pension if he is weakened in health.

Mr. BARNES

We shall assume some responsibility, and it will be measured by this. We shall put them back where we found them, and I think that is sufficient. In exceptional cases, where a man's disease has been to some extent accelerated by the War, there will be a gratuity of £100 but that will be an exceptional case. The great bulk of them will get nothing like that, and they will be disposed of by a gratuity of a small amount according to a scale which we have drawn up. Finally, in passing away from pensions for disabled men, I have to say that we have made an arrangement with Chelsea whereby every man who is pensioned will have his name sent on to his committee, so that every committee throughout the country will have a full list of all the pensioners within their area.

5.0 P.M.

With regard to the second division—that is, widows and children—I adopt the same principle as before; I will dispose first of the children. The children of a widow had up to now, and have still, 5s., 3s. 6d., and 2s. for each child thereafter. We propose to make it the same as for a man's children—namely, 5s., 1s. 2d., 3s. 4d., and 2s. 6d. The widow benefits, therefore, to the extent of 2s. 6d. for four children. There are four classes of widows in this Warrant. They may be called the main widow, the pensioner's widow, the gratuity man's widow, and the separated wife widow. The main widow is the only widow we have catered for hitherto; that is, the widow of a man who dies in the War, or within seven years after the War, from causes attributable to the War. We propose that that woman's pension shall be lifted from 10s., as at present, to 13s. 9d. as a minimum, and we arrive at that 13s. 9d. in this way, that she is entitled to one-half of the pension to which her husband would have been entitled had he survived the War and been in full benefit. It works out that the woman is entitled to 13s. 9d. instead of 10s. But the woman is entitled to an alternative pension based upon her husband's pre-war earnings, so that her alternative pension may amount to half of his maximum pension of 70s., and her maximum pension may therefore be 37s. 6d. But the widow of a soldier is only entitled to an alternative pension if she had been married to the soldier before the War or before he enlisted. That woman's pension may, therefore, range from 13s. 9d. to 37s. 6d. In regard to the children, exactly the same principle is followed as in the case of those of the disabled men. Their allowance is included in the maximum pension. Therefore, if a woman has four children for which she gets 15s., that would be added to her 13s. 9d, that would be 28s. 9d., and she would get no more except her husband's pension, had he survived, had been over twice that amount. That works out that the widow under thirty-five without children will get 13s. 9d., instead of 10s.; if she has one child she gets 18s. 9d., instead of 15s.; and so on up to six children, when she gets 33s. 9d., instead of 26s. 6d. If at any point on the scale she is getting less on her flat rate than she would under the alternative pension, then she has a right to apply for further benefit up to half.

I now take the pensioner's widow, that is the widow of the man who dies in possession of a pension, but whose death would not entitle his widow to a pension. The widow of that man has hitherto been entitled to nothing. We propose that she shall get half of the husband's pension, qualified only by this: that the husband's pension must at least have been 10s. Hon. Members will see the widow in this case may get half the pension, anything from 5s. to 13s. 9d., if the man has been substantially hurt as the result of the War.

Next there is the widow of the gratuity man. We propose to give her 10s. per week during the continuance of the War, and for twelve months thereafter.

Last of all, there is the separated wife widow—that is to say, the widow who has been separated from her husband before the War. If the man has been adjudged by the Court to be liable to pay her, we propose to give her that or up to anything that he may have voluntarily given her up to 10s. per week. Whether he had agreed to pay anything or not, if she has children, we take over the care of the children by scale allowance. In regard to remarriage of widows we propose to reduce the gratuity from two years to one year. I know certain objections have been taken to this by, amongst others, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, but I think it ought to be remembered that there is the 13s. 9d. now instead of the 10s.

Sir C. NICHOLSON

What about remarriage?

Mr. HOGGE

This is the merry widow.

Mr. BARNES

The gratuity amounts to this: It does not mean half from the woman on the 10s. pension. The 13s. 9d. pension for a year will give £35 15s., I think; so that hon. Members will see, if we had agreed to pay the woman still her two years' gratuity, she would have got £71 10s., whereas she will get now £35 15s. I come to the allowances to widows, first of all to the 1s. 3d., bringing the woman of forty-five up to 15s. per week, and secondly, the £3 gratuity to be given to every woman on the death of her husband.

Mr. HOGGE

Is that retrospective?

Mr. BARNES

We are proposing to make a right what has hitherto been granted as a favour. I have tried to ascertain how many widows have got this £3 gratuity. I do not think, from what I have been able to gather, that more than one in ten of widows left by the War have got this £3. We propose in future that every widow on the death of her husband shall have £3 sent to her straight away without any inquiry at all. The last allowance to the War widow is a very important one. We provide that 12s. 6d. a week, in addition to her pension, should be given to any woman who applies for a course of training. That was urged on the Select Committee by the women's representatives, and it has also been urged in various ways by many hon. Members of this House. Everyone knows that there is a scarcity of nurses and skilled women in many walks of life. We propose that these widows, who make application to have 12s. 6d. a week granted to them shall have it while they are under a course of training for nursing or some other similar training tending to increase their usefulness to the community as well as their interest in life. In regard to orphan children we are increasing the rate for the first child to 7s. and 6s. for each child after where there is more than one. In regard to illegitimate children, whether or not there has been an affiliation order against the reputed father, if the mother can convince the local committee as to the paternity of the child, she gets 5s. per week thereafter.

The third line of my main division relates to dependants. Article 20 deals with the unmarried wife. At present if she is infirm she gets anything from 5s. to 10s. during her infirmity. If she has no children she gets only the year's separation allowance. If she has children she gets 10s. per week and children's allowance. We propose that she should get 10s. per week during the War and for twelve months thereafter, and if her infirmity be continued after that 10s. a week during such infirmity, and if she has children, 10s. per week and children's allowances. Dependent parents—and this is the main difference in regard to dependants—of a soldier in future will get 15s. per week as a maximum. They get that 15s. per week made up in respect of pre-war dependence on more than one son; that is to say, if three sons have contri- buted 5s. per week then the woman gets 5s. per week in respect of each of them, or 15s. There are parents and parents; Some have sacrificed their comfort and their leisure to give their sons trades or professions. The parents of apprentices and students can get 15s. per week on showing that they are unable to earn their own living by virtue of infirmity or old age. That is a very important qualification. Subject to that qualification the parent of a student or apprentice in future may get 15s. per week, although there has been no pre-war dependence at all upon her son. Finally, I want to direct the attention of the House and to ask hon. Members to consider a proposal that is put forward. Article 10, Section 2, gives us the power to deduct a penny from the 2s. 6d. pension of any widow for any benefit that we may devise. The origin of that is the need for increasing the number of women and children who are assured of medical benefit. At present there are 12,000,000 industrial persons under the Insurance Act. This would help us in devising some scheme of medical benefit for those of whom I have been speaking, and would place an additional 400,000 women and children under the supervision of the doctors, and therefore assured of medical aid, if they needed it. We had not time to devise a scheme before this warrant was got out, but we have reserved power to put a scheme into operation, and we shall be glad to take the mind of the House on it.

This amended scheme of pensions, it is estimated actuarially will involve a capital sum of £396,000,000, or, in the first year, an expenditure of £25,000,000; our proposals mean a capital charge of £130,000,000, or £6,500,000 for the first year. I want just to state that baldly, so that hon. Members may weigh it up in their own minds.

Mr. HOGGE

It is not very large.

Mr. BARNES

I want to make an appeal and to offer a warning. This is an enormous task with which we are dealing to the best of our ability. As I have already said, we have 700,000 persons, or nearly so, upon our books or in prospect by the first of April. That number will be increased. We are doing all we can by adding to our buildings and staff to cope with the situation, and I hope our staff, which numbers now 2,500, will be able to do it. Three hundred thousand people will benefit by this—that is to say, 300,000 who are at present on pension or allowance, exclusive of children. It is perfectly obvious that if those 300,000 apply all in a heap we shall be snowed under and the machine will break down. Nor is there any need why they should apply because all these people who are pensioned at present will automatically come under the new scale in due course. Take the case of a widow at present on 10s. per week. She will go on continuing to get her 10s. a week until the present draft runs out, say in May. Then she will get her new draft, and the first week's money will cover the arrears back to the first pay day in April. I hope such a woman will possess her soul in patience and will go on receiving her money just the same as usual and not worry us with letters in regard to it. We have provided by a form letter to acknowledge any application that comes from a pensioner. After that no further communication will be sent to any further communication from that pensioner. If the Press do not take any notice of anything else that I say, I hope it will at least take notice of this announcement. Those who are at present on pension are asked not to send us needless and useless letters, and I appeal to them, through the Press and through anybody who can influence them, not, to burden us with these needless and useless letters which will simply put sand in the wheels that we want freely to move on their behalf. My task is now done, I think.

Captain GWYNN

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain as to the applications for pensions to be rated on the pre-war earnings?

Mr. BARNES

I am afraid I do not follow what the hon. Gentleman means. We have decided to give the benefit of pre-war rates. The War started on the 4th of August, and the man's pre-war earnings will be what he earned twelve months prior to that.

Captain GWYNN

I am sorry I have not made myself quite understood. What I wanted to say was—

Mr. BARNES

I see, I see; that is a different point. Yes, quite. Every man and woman will be on an equality as from the 1st of April, though they may have to wait a few weeks. That, I think, is the hon. Member's point?

Captain GWYNN

Yes.

Mr. BARNES

Every man's claim, no matter what the order may be in which they come in, will all be dated back to 1st April. I have finished my task. I hope I have not wearied the House too much. I conclude by submitting to the House, and to the favourable consideration of hon. Members present, what I think will be a very valuable document. It may contain blemishes. It may be open to criticism on minor points, although I hope the House will not suggest any alteration in big principles. There are certain verbal inaccuracies we have already noted ourselves and will rectify, but, on the whole, I think it may be said to be a document under the terms of which no man who has suffered or striven in this War, and no dependant of any such man, will in future be without the means of livelihood. It will cost a great deal of money, but for my part I feel sure the country will be able to pay it and will be glad to pay it.

Mr. HOGGE

I am perfectly certain the first thing the House would like me to do will be to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very clear fashion in which he has laid before the House the new principles embodied in this proposed Royal Warrant. I am only sorry that Members were not present in much larger numbers to hear what was an extremely important statement, not only to us, but to those whom we represent, and though, presumably, before I resume my seat I may be up against the Pensions Minister on some points, I personally congratulate him upon his first appearance at that box as Pensions Minister, and on the method in which he has so succesfully and plainly, without any equivocation, without any attempt to evade the issues which he might know would be debated, put the position before the House. He rather chided me in his concluding remarks because I ventured an interruption about the cost of this pensions scheme to the community. I ventured to say what I am prepared to repeat, that the cost, after all, is not very great, and that is perfectly obvious to anyone who cares to look at it from the proper angle. After all, this sum which the actuary sets forth in his Report is a sum which he himself says is estimated to "suffice with its interest earnings to meet the charges as from the beginning of the War and would be exhausted concurrently with the payment of the last pension." I presume the Pensions Minister will agree that the average actuarial life of anyone on the pension fund is likely to be certainly not less than thirty years, and if in a period of thirty years we are only going to exhaust a capital sum of less than £400,000,000, it means that all the Pensions Minister is asking the State to carry during the next thirty years is a sum of some £15,000,000 annually, and if the cost to the nation in supporting and maintaining the disabled men and their dependants is no greater a sum than £15,000,000 annually, I think there is some justification for my interruption that, after all, it is not a big sum. I noticed that the Pensions Minister did not take credit for the fathership, or the authorship, of this Warrant, and stated that it was the product of a great many brains. I am sure, so far as I am concerned, I would prefer that he had been the father of the Warrant.

Mr. BARNES

I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me, and I may be at fault in not making myself perfectly clear. I did not say for a moment that I did not appreciate and agree with all that was in the Warrant. I wish to put it as plain as I could that credit was due to someone, and I did not claim it.

Mr. HOGGE

My view is that the right hon. Gentleman could have drawn a much better Warrant had he done it himself, without consulting all those people with whom he so explicitly agrees. There is one governing consideration which has not yet been dealt with, but which I hope will be made plain by somebody in the course of this Debate. Does this Warrant cover European and non-European soldiers, or does it only cover European soldiers? I do not know whether that point has been thought of, or whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell me at once if this applies simply to European soldiers? The reason I put the point is, as my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will remember, that when the Statutory Committee's Regulations were drawn they were not applicable to non-European soldiers—that is to say a soldier serving in India under certain conditions, even although he had been admitted to the present Army, was not eligible for those provisions under the Statutory Committee's Regulations, and could only be made so by being given the equivalent concessions through the India Office. I am not putting this in any spirit of contention, but simply that it should not be overlooked that the advantages of this Warrant should obviously be applicable both to European and to non-European soldiers, and that we should not have to bring my right hon. Friend cases two or three months after this in which he might have to reply to us that, because this man is serving in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, or in India, he has not the same right as the man who is serving in France or Flanders. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend wishes that, and will make some inquiry with regard to it. I should like also to have heard a little more about what the Pensions Minister is doing in co-ordinating the various activities which were placed under his charge by the House. He has told us he has just taken over Chelsea. I should like to know with regard to that whether he is making any fresh and better arrangements at Chelsea for getting through the work. I am not deceived by the testimonial that he read to the House, and I do not think my right hon. Friend is deceived by that testimonial either. He knows perfectly well that Chelsea was unable to deal with the problem with which it was faced when casualties began to come in, and, as a matter of fact, a great many awards which were refused at Chelsea in the first months of the War have since been admitted by Chelsea, proving obviously that Chelsea, like everybody else, can make mistakes. What I should like to know is, is the old arrangement going on at Chelsea?

Mr. BARNES

No.

Mr. HOGGE

I am glad to hear that.

Mr. BARNES

We have set up a special Board at Chelsea, over which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary presides, for dealing with all doubtful cases.

Mr. HOGGE

I am very relieved to hear that, and I am glad to know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is taking this branch of pension activity directly under his care, because I can assure him, as one can assure the House, that there is no more important piece of work than the settling of those cases on a basis which commends itself to those who have to put the cases before him. Most of us get cases in which, when we have read them, there appears good ground for appeal, and it is very much more satisfactory to know that when those cases go to Chelsea there is a special machinery by which they will receive special considera- tion. I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend in having already made that change, and I trust it is only one of many which he hopes to make with regard to Chelsea. I think he will agree that a great deal of the success of this Warrant obviously depends upon administration, and one of the duties which will be left to the House will be that of vigilant attention to what my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who are in charge of this problem are doing in regard to administration. I should also like to know from my right hon. Friend exactly where we stand in regard to the Statutory Committee. We had an interesting announcement at question time to-day that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales had resigned the chairmanship of that Committee, and there are in this Warrant provisions in certain of the articles which obviously, so far as I can judge, take over certain of the functions of the Statutory Committee. For instance, there is the one my right hon. Friend mentioned about the £3 being payable to the widow of a soldier after death. We all know that under Part II. of the Statutory Committee's Regulations there is such a provision at the present moment. Presumably the woman will not get the £3 from him, and also have it under Part II. of the Regulations. Obviously this wipes out the other.

I think my right hon. Friend, or the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies, might say something to the House with regard to the relationship of the Pensions Ministry to the Statutory Committee, as to how much of its work has already been absorbed under the direct care of the Pensions Ministry, and how much is yet left to the Statutory Committee as it exists. I am one of those, as my right hon. Friend knows, who does not believe in so many committees. I would like to see the time quickly approaching when the more direct you can make the application of the pensioner to the machinery the better, and so I should like to see the Statutory Committee go the way of all flesh, and my right hon. Friend or his successor control the whole machinery of pensions. That, I think, is advisable we should know. Having said that, I want to say, with regard to this new Warrant, one or two things, which may or may not interest my right hon. Friend. The fourth paragraph of the Preamble seems to me to want particular explanation to the House. It reads as follows: The pension of a soldier who has served before the date of this Our Warrant may be assessed under the terms of Our previous Warrants regulating disablement pensions for soldiers, if more favourable to the soldier than this Our Warrant, and no grant to a soldier or to the family or dependants of a soldier shall be reassessed to their disadvantage. I have heard those phrases before. I am very familiar with the words that a man's pension may be reassessed if it is to his advantage, and I know a great number of men whose pensions have been reassessed "to their advantage," to use the official phrase. But one is still looking for the advantage to the man in every one of those cases. I have never yet known a case that has been reassessed to the advantage of the soldier. I should be very glad to hear of one. But the point I want to put, and to which we ought to have some specific answer, is: How much of the old Warrants still exist? I even put it more explicitly: Does No. 1162 of the Pay Warrant of 1914 still remain in existence? If it does, then this Warrant, to a large extent, is deprived of a great number of its advantages, because 1162 of 1914 makes no provision at all for any children's pensions, and the man who may have been in receipt of a pension for himself and his children may be reassessed to his advantage and lose his children's pension. The decision in this matter lies entirely in the hands of the Pensions Minister, and I think it is unreasonable that the soldier should be told by any one authority that the reassessment is to his advantage, and that there ought to be open to him in everything that occurs in this new Warrant the opportunity of an appeal. There is no appeal anywhere in this Warrant. Supposing a man has at the moment a partial disablement pension. He goes to have it reassessed, and he is told on the authority of the Pensions Minister that it is to his advantage to be reassessed on 1162 of 1914, or on the Warrant of 1915. If the man thinks he is not, and that it is not going to be advantageous, and if he can bring, as most of them can, local medical evidence of a much longer duration than we get at Chelsea, or anywhere else, that the disease is directly attributable to service, is all that to count for nothing, and is he to have no court of appeal to have it interpreted as to whether this pension is to his advantage or not? I think so much of the question of interpretation that I shall draw atten- tion to one or two more paragraphs in the Royal Warrant. Paragraph 1 of Part I. states: A warrant officer or non-commissioned officer entitled to a service pension may, if more favourable to him, receive a disablement pension as in the schedule, according to rank, in place of a disablement pension on the lowest scale, and a service pension in addition. If hon. Members will look at page 14 of the Warrant, which will interest those who take an interest in naval matters, they will see in Article I a provision by which men after a certain number of years' service are to get an additional service pension. Men of twenty-five years' service and over get 5s. a week, and the Warrant states: The pension granted to a seaman or marine who held paid acting rank at the time he was wounded, injured, or removed from duty in consequence of disablement, may be at the rate appropriate to that rank. In the Explanatory Note on page 23, there is the following provision: The disablement pension is to be in addition to any service pension to which the man may be entitled, but where a service pension is given which includes an element for rank, that element will he excluded from the disablement pension. That means to say if a man is entitled to a service pension which includes an element for rank, he cannot get it unless he goes on at the last disablement rate. If a man is entitled to a service pension for rank, and is also entitled to a pension for disablement. I think he is entitled to both, and nobody has any right to take that pension from him. I hope somebody on the Front Bench will deal with that point. There are a great number of smaller points which seem to me very subtle. There is Article 9 on page 5 of the Warrant, which deals with the question of pensions when disablement takes effect after discharge. Paragraph (b) of Article 9 provides as follows: Disease, certified as contracted or commencing while on active service, or as having been substantially aggravated by active service in consequence of the present War. I would like to know who put in the word "substantially." Which of the various brains that my right hon. Friend consulted devised the word "substantially." Is it not inclined to remove the man's pension a little way further from him? We have had trouble enough in getting a man his pension on the word "aggravated." but when you add the adverb "substantially" you are removing the man further away from his pension than he is at present, and in that respect this Warrant is not so good as the previous one. I want to put it quite clearly that what the House of Commons must watch very carefully is the interpretations that are put upon those articles in the administration of pensions. I can conceive, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will agree, that the administration of this Warrant will make things worse than anything that exists, because you can keep within the official four corners of this Warrant and yet give worse conditions. I think I have given enough points to show that here and there the introduction of the word "substantially" puts a man several hundred yards further off his pension than any of the existing Warrants. I want to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on points which I consider are very unsatisfactory, and I will meet him at once on the question of the broken men. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman turned round to me, and said that so long as he was Pension Minister those broken men would not get the pension, and all they would get would be what they get from I this Warrant. I hope on that point he I will change his mind, because he belongs to a Government which often changes its mind, and, therefore, it will not be an uncommon thing for him to change his mind also.

Let us consider the case which he put before the House. We were told that Chelsea itself had already had through its fingers 65,000 of these medically unfit I men. My right hon. Friend increased that figure in debate to 100,000. But let the House understand what that means. That means four or five Army divisions of men have been drafted from their civilian occupations, admitted into the Army by the paid servants of the War Office—qualified servants, who are still at their posts, and who have not been dismissed because they have admitted 100,000 men wrongly. These men have been taken into the Army, and used in the Army under conditions which have broken them down. They have been thrown out of the Army, and thrown out for months. In September the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said the case of these men was such that it must be men and there were 40,000 or 50,000 of these men six months ago. These men have all been thrown out over a period of twelve months, and their wives and children have been deprived of separation allowances, and the men have not been able to resume work, and will never be able to resume work. Is it sug- gested that the people of this country are going to stand a system which will allow incompetent medical opinion in the War Office to take into the Army over five Army divisions of men and then scrap them and their families on a, gratuity of £100? If that is your proposal, God help you; You are going to get that fact thrown at you at every opportunity inside and outside this House until you do meet the case. It is a case that you must meet, and you must meet it in a much more effective way than by £100 gratuity.

There are men to-day being taken for the Army and put into categories. There are C 1, C 2, C 3 men, and those men are going into the Army with obvious physical defects because they are put into those categories, and they would not be put there if they had not those defects. Supposing those men break down physically. Are they to be scrapped at £100 a time? My right hon. Friend says that so long as he is Minister of Pensions they will be scrapped at £100 a time, and that no pension will be provided for them. This is a maximum of £100 which is proposed, and it is not really a pension of £100. Let us see what it means. If that man gets his maximum and invests it in War Loan, he will have an income of £5 a year. I think that is a mean suggestion. If the man expends that £100 at the same rate, or one-half the rate, which my right hon. Friend has explained at that box this afternoon, for himself, his wife, and his family, that £100 is not the equivalent of one year's pension. Let me put it to my right hon. Friend, who is not devoid of sympathy. Suppose a man dies as the result of his treatment in the Army, and leaves a widow and some children. What is there for them? Is there anything for them?

Mr. BARNES

Certainly; 10s. a week during the War.

Mr. HOGGE

That is not the provision, but obviously a substitute for another previous provision which I am going to deal with. It is a substitute for an Army Order which provides for the widow a greater sum than you are allowing in this Warrant. But I repeat, and I maintain, that the widow of a man who is broken in the Army, and the children of that man who is broken in the Army, are not provided for, so far as I can interpret this Warrant in the existing document. If it is on the basis of which my right hon. Friend spoke, of 10s. a week for the period of the War, and 10s. a week for a year afterwards, that, on the basis of a two-years' war, is £52. What it means, then, admitting that my right hon. Friend is right, is that he means to get rid of the liability and responsibility of carrying the broken man for £100 a time, and of the wife and family for £52 a time. That is not British generosity. You talk about what the man who comes back from the War will think, and of what he will say when he gets back. My right hon. Friend drew a picture of a man who had weakened himself in the trenches, and of what he would think. Does not he realise that the first thing that man would get when he came back would be his pension, and, having got it, he would be most sympathetic to everybody else getting a pension. The example my right hon. Friend took was one of the worst possible. I promise him that, although we can agree on a great many things—there are a great many things in the Warrant which we discussed before it was printed, and on which we did agree—on this specific point I have always told him that I would oppose it, and I will do so to the extent of getting him out of the Ministry if he takes the view that he will stick there without giving it. I promised him a fight, and he will get it in and out of season until these men get what the country thinks they ought to get, what they deserve, and are entitled to get—ordinary British justice.

Then let us take Article 9, which I want to discuss for a few minutes. It deals with the question of disablement pensions, and says that if a man within seven years of discharge is certified to be disabled—and so forth—then he can get a pension. Why seven years? I beg the House to direct its attention very closely to this point. Mark what may happen. A man may have been wounded in 1916. He may get a certain pension, "X." In 1917 his disability may have become intensified. He can get that pension reassessed; he may get "X Y" as a pension, and he can go on progressively, I take it, beyond seven years, getting his pension reassessed as long as he lives. That is agreed between us. If you look at Mr. Watson's actuarial report in regard to disabled men, you will find this very significant sentence:— The number of men who are wounded and return to duty appears to be fully twice as great as the number of men who are discharged. What does that mean? It means that to-day men who have been wounded and have come back to this country, or to the base hospital, and have recovered from their wounds are back again in the fighting ranks. They may be wounded more than once and go back into the fighting ranks. When the War is over they will return, like every other soldier, to civilian life. Suppose no disability arises out of any of those wounds until the eighth year, they get no pension, and are not even eligible. The mere fact that time is effluxing means that the disability always is increasing; that the wound of a man who may have been wounded and fought again in the ranks may have very particular results on his constitution. Very well. If that man does not have any signs of that inside seven years he is ruled out. He is out and under so far as this Warrant is concerned. I would like the Pension Minister to get rid of that seven years, or, if he will not do that, let me suggest that at any rate the seven years should not apply to any soldier who has suffered a casualty; that in the case of all soldiers or sailors who have suffered a casualty and are not yet on the pension list, that at any time during the remainder of these men's lives, if they can prove that the disability from which they are then suffering was due to the War, they ought to come on the pension scheme. I think that is fair, and I offer that suggestion, as I am more willing to compromise on that point.

If the Committee will turn to Article 15 on page 7, they will reach another point at which they will require to look very carefully. It deals with temporary pensions to widows, where the disease is not attributable to or substantially aggravated by military service. The widow of a soldier who during the present War has died from wounds, injuries, or disease, neither attributable to military service nor certified— and so on— may be granted a temporary pension of 10s, a week for the period of the War, and for twelve months afterwards. What has become of the Army Order which is in existence by which the widow and children of a man in these circumstances is entitled now to a maximum gratuity of £300, payable in a lump sum or instalments, on account of that very fact? You have knocked the four-fifths man out of the Pension Warrant, when his disease was attributable. You have done the sensible thing. You are going to pay the man the full pension. What about his wife and children? What about his widow and children, when she becomes a widow? suggest that you want to compare the Warrant with the Army Order which makes that provision, and to see whether you are not doing an injustice to the woman.

If you will now look at Article 21 on page 8, that raises the question on which my right hon. Friend justly took some credit. That is the question of the apprentice and the student who is killed. That has been raised in this House more than once, and I need therefore only put the case very briefly. Hon. Members will remember what it is. For long enough, until a new Regulation was made by the Statutory Committee, the medical student at the university, or the arts student, or any young lad of that kind who joined the forces was not able to secure a separation allowance for his mother or any dependant because obviously they were not dependent upon him. As a matter of fact, they were paying out money for him, making big sacrifices for him, and he was not able to secure a separation allowance. After many days the Statutory Committee made a Regulation which met that in some respects. But, mark you, many of those lads, and not only those but the industrial equivalent, the apprentice, have since been killed in this War, and this Article 21 is supposed to meet the case. Now look how it meets it. First of all the maximum pension is 15s. a week for one or twenty sons. It does not matter how many sons they had. All that is eyewash as to how much may be granted on account of each son, because it does not matter how many they had, 15s. is the maximum. I should say if you wanted to do it properly 15s. for one parent, and 25s. for two. But when are these parents to get that money? Let hon. Members look at paragraph 2 of Article 21. The parent (or parents) of a soldier— and so forth may, if the parent (or parents) is (or are) wholly or partly incapable of self-support from infirmity or age… Picture to yourself. Mr. Maclean, some of your own Scottish constituents, the fathers and mothers of young men at Scottish Universities. When they joined the Army their parents were not infirm, or in their dotage. They had no separation allowance, and the whole potential value of their son's life to them, if he bad remained alive, is lost. They have to sacrifice it all unless they can prove that they are infirm, or in their dotage.

Sir H. CRAIK

When they become infirm.

Mr. HOGGE

It does not say that. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that it may mean when they become infirm. But does it do so? It does not say so. It says that the parents of a soldier who has died in the circumstances set forth in Article 11 of this Warrant may, if they are incapable of self-support "from infirmity or age."

Sir H. CRAIK

I assume that means as soon as they become infirm. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Mr. HOGGE

I am very glad of the hon. and learned Gentleman's assistance in trying to drag an answer from the Front Bench. He is trying to help me and trying to make the Pensions Minister or the Under-Secretary say that it does mean "when they becomeinfirm." But it does not say so, and the absence of an answer from the Front Bench means that it does not mean so. Therefore, the loss of the potential value of these young lads who have been sacrificed in hundreds, if not in thousands, from our universities and workshops is going to get no recognition at all under this new Warrant. I hope we shall get it. I do not want the House to be in the position which we have been in the past, of allowing these things to go for want of proper criticism, and I am trying, although I am afraid rather badly on account of a wretched cold, to warn the Committee not to allow this Supplementary Estimate to be passed without some promise of amendment, because if we allow the Government to get the money then our power is gone. Let us keep hold of their Supplementary Estimate. If I were able to remain in the House I would try to prevent them getting it to-night for that purpose; not that I do not trust my right hon. Friend, or do not believe that he does honestly and sincerely—and I think he believes me—want to do the right thing with regard to the men. We all want to do the right thing, but we may want to do it in different ways on occasion, and the best way to bring pressure on any Government is to keep hold of the money, and I want the House not to let them have this too cheaply.

6.0 P.M.

Then let the Committee look at Article 8 on page 5. There is a thing which surely might have been cleared up; the provision for the discharged medically unfit soldier—14s. a week until a decision is announced. Is not that point cleared up yet? What is the position at the moment? If a soldier leaves the Army and has not yet had a decision with regard to his pension he is entitled to draw 14s. a week and separation allowance for a fortnight. If it is not settled within the fortnight the separation allowance drops, his wife and family suffer, but the soldier goes on drawing the 14s. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman put that right? He can do it in one breath. All he requires to do is to say that until a decision is reached the allowance will be 14s., plus separation allowance, or that no decision will be reached until the Army is in a position to discharge the man at the same moment. I do not think that at this time of day, after so many months of war, there ought to be a single soldier—I do not know how many there may be, but there are bound to be some with this provision here—who is not drawing 14s. and separation allowance until he knows whether he is getting, a pension or not. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is an easy alternative that the man should stop in the Army, thereby drawing his pay with the separation allowance until a decision is reached. If it is impossible for the Army to keep the man until his discharge let him have both the 14s. and the separation allowances until a decision is reached. That surely will appeal to the common sense of the-House. I ask the Committee to look at Schedule No. 1. I am very glad to see that some attempt has been made to put the various disabilities into categories. May I ask if this is a draft Schedule or whether this is the permanent suggestion that is made with regard to these various disabilities.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen)

The whole-Warrant is in draft.

Mr. HOGGE

All that that means is this, that the Pensions Ministry could have issued this without bringing it to the House of Commons. They have brought it out of courtesy, and we are very grateful to them for doing so. I think it is the right thing to do, and it would have been very wrong not to have done so. A draft in that sense only means that this is the Warrant that is going to be unless the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are convinced that some points have been put that do want amendment, in which case they will amend them. But the Pensions Minister will never bring it back here again, and will publish it forthwith. We will never see it here again, so that this is our one and only chance. Turning to the Schedule, I notice that for the loss of a leg and an eye 27s. 6d. is the pension with which is suggested, but for total deafness, where a man cannot hear any more, all he is to get is 19s. 3d., or 8s. 3d. less than the other case. The man who has lost a leg and an eye can still walk and use both arms and see, but the man who is totally deaf has one of his functions entirely cut off for all time. Then, again, for the loss of one hand and one foot 27s. 6d. is the pension suggested, but for the loss of both feet 22s., or 5s. less, is the amount named. I am quite willing to discuss these matters, and that is why I am suggesting that I hope they are not permanent. I can conceive circumstances in which a man who has lost his two feet is worse off than the man who has lost one hand and one foot. For the disability of very severe facial disfigurement 27s. 6d. is allowed. Compare that with 19s. 3d. for total deafness, and how does anybody justify differences of that kind? I am not grudging the man who has got severe facial disfigurement the 27s. 6d., but what I am suggesting is, and what I want to know is, whether these figures are permanently fixed, or whether the Minister is open to reconsider some of these categories? I really do suggest that, for instance, to give 19s. 3d. for total deafness against 27s. 6d. for severe facial disfigurement—

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

"Very severe."

Mr. HOGGE

There are two categories of facial disfigurement. I do not know whether the Minister has examined the American categories for disabilities. I do suggest that a number of these disabilities seem to me to rather want revision. There is another point I desire to put, and that is with regard to alternative benefits, as to which I am rather concerned. In the section which deals with exceptions, power is reserved to the Minister to substitute alternative benefits for one-thirtieth of the pension to widows, children, and dependants. My right hon. Friend did not quite explain what he meant by that, I took it to mean—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that the Pensions Minister retains an authority over part of the pension which is payable to these people. The right hon. Gentleman nods assent, so that I have interpreted correctly. I want to suggest this view. Have you any real right to do that, except a right which you take to yourselves arbitrarily? Are not those people entitled to their full pensions, and is any Pensions Minister entitled to come in and say, despite the fact that this is your scale pension to which you are entitled by warrant, I or my successor is going to deal with so much of your pension? I think if my right hon. Friend had anything else in his mind as to alternative benefits that there ought to be some way of getting over it, rather than by interfering with any portion of the pension. I do rather distrust, not my right hon. Friend, but a system which seeks to interfere for any purpose with part of a pension which is the right of those people.

We have got to bear in mind that, even with this Royal Warrant, good as it is, we are not yet conferring upon the soldier, his widow, and dependants, a legal right to a pension. In Article 10 it is explicitly stated, with regard to pensions to wives, children, and dependants of deceased soldiers that those pensions shall not be claimed as a right, but shall be given as a reward of service. I am one of those people who think these pensions have been won by service as a right, and that it should not be a matter of grace. It seems to me to be an ungraceful thing to say to the widow of a soldier who has laid down his life, or the widow of a sailor who has given his life, that we are giving you this because we feel that if we did not give it we would be ostracised. After all, we fought in this House for months about the cost of material, the cost of methods, the cost of machinery for this War. The man who has made the biggest sacrifice and the biggest contribution to the successful peace which we all hope will emerge from this War, is the soldier Tommy, who has fought for his shilling a day. That is the man who has got the biggest sum on the right side of the ledger, he is the one man to whom the people of the whole nation ought to take off their hats, he is the man who wants most concessions, and I suggest that one of the things you might at any rate do is to establish the legal right of that man, and the legal right of his dependants, to a pension which, after all, will never wipe out the debt of gratitude that we owe to him.

Sir HENRY NORMAN

This is an historic occasion. It is the first occasion in the history of this House when a Minister of Pensions has ever presented a formal project for the approval of the House of Commons. I desire to associate myself with what has been so well said by the hon. Member in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions upon his first appearance in discharge of the very weighty duties that have been laid upon him. Nothing could be more lucid than the way in which he presented documents, necessarily very complicated and very detailed. For my own part I shall confine myself to two subjects in which I have been called to take special interest. Like everyone else, of course, I was always interested in this question of the future of the disabled men, but I became especially so when I was asked to prepare a Report upon what the French nation are doing in this respect. My right hon. Friend made a brief comparison with what if being done in France, and was good enough to allude for a moment to my Report. With regard to that Report I will only ask permission to say one word which ought to be said. That Report was presented to the War Office in the middle of October of last year. For three months it was treated by the War Office as a confidential document, for what reason I cannot possibly imagine. I cannot see anything whatever of a confidential nature in it. At last permission was secured to circulate it, for a small number of copies—200, I think—had been printed. They were at once applied for by those who were taking a special interest in the matter, and were at once exhausted. The Report has now been reprinting under the charge of the Stationery Office for three weeks or more, and if it is available to Members of the House now it has only become so during the last hour. Quite apart from anything personal to myself, I believe that Report contains a summary of a great many facts as to the French procedure which it is really important for us to know in this House, and I think it is very regrettable that it has not been made available to Members at an earlier date.

It may be of interest to make a comparison between the French and British treatment of this matter both with regard to the actual rates and with regard, so to speak, to the basic principle underlying them. Take, for instance, for comparison, the case of the private soldier in what is called in this Warrant degree 3 of disablement—that is, short thigh amputation of leg or of left arm at shoulder joint, or of right arm above or through elbow. In that case the soldier will receive 19s. 3d. plus a generous allowance for his children, and if he has three children that allowance will be 12s. 6d. A man similarly injured will in France, instead of 19s. 3d., receive 11s. 6d., and it is probable that some allowance for children will be added to that in France, but that has not yet become law. Thus, in that case you will have 19s. 3d. plus a very generous children's allowance in this country, as against 11s. 6d. with a children's allowance probably to come in France, but because of the differentiation of degrees of disablement, if a man in England had lost a complete arm or a complete leg he would not have 19s. 3d. but 22s. in this country, whereas in France he would still only have 11s. 6d. Again, take the totally blind. In England the amount he would have would be 27s. 6d., plus the children's allowance. In Franco he would have 15s., plus whatever children's allowance may be decided upon. In the third place, take the pension of a widow in England. The woman's minimum would be 13s. 9d., plus an allowance for her children, while in France the maximum would be 8s. 10d., plus a problematical allowance for her children. That is, speaking not exactly but in general terms as regards rates, the English rates as proposed in this Warrant are practically double those in force in France. The point of view underlying them is different. In France military service is regarded as every man's obvious and ordinary duty, and he must himself, according to the French point of view, largely bear its risks. The State does what it can for him, but it does not profess to attempt to restore him to anything approaching his pre-war financial position. In fact, the French official booklet which is put into the disabled man's hands when he leaves hospital begins with a sentence which I translate from memory: Every man mutilated in the service of the State has a right to a pension. The second sentence is: But this pension is, unfortunately, insufficient to maintain that man, especially if he is the head of a family. In England we regard the man's risk as our responsibility, very rightly from our point of view. While it is obviously impossible to confer in all cases a pension which would be anything like the man's pre-war income, we give this approximately up to a certain limit. For instance, the man with three children and in the third degree of disablement, if he earned £5 a week before the War, would have a certain pension of £2 16s. 9d., and, with some earning power which might be put moderately at £i, he would have an income of £3 16s. 9d. There is nothing comparable to the pension part of that in the pensions paid under the French system. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that in certain respects we are ahead of the practice of our Allies across the Channel. But with all respect to him, there is another point of view in regard to which, for the moment and since the beginning of the War, they are in advance of ourselves. Although France gives the disabled man less money, she consequently makes every effort to enable him to become again a self-supporting member of the industrial community—that is a producer. If the French disabled soldier is content with his pension he will have to live in poverty and will become an object of semi charity. In England the disabled man, at any rate until his children grow up, will be able to live with some degree of comfort on his pension, but for the rest of his life must be a consumer only. It will be seen that the two points of view are thus entirely different. I greatly fear that the result will be that a much larger proportion of disabled men in France will return to industrial life and will grow steadily better off, whereas the English disabled soldier who does not become re-educated will grow steadily poorer as his children grow up, and he, being without useful occupation and human nature being what it is, will probably be tempted to spend his income not always too wisely.

It will, of course, be said that for these men, who have suffered so much for us, nothing can be too good and no kindness can be too great. With that all of us will most whole-heartedly agree. The only question is, What is the greatest kindness? My right hon. Friend said that the pen- sion is not everything. Is it the greatest kindness simply to hand these men the money, or to pension them under conditions which will induce them to become workers once more, producers and not merely consumers, self-respecting and respected members of the industrial community, with far higher wages, therefore with far more comfortable and happier homes and far brighter prospects for their children? The ideal solution would have been to detain them, unless they formally insisted upon their discharge, under military discipline until they had received all possible benefit from physical treatment and had during the same period become readapted to the practice of some trade, and in many instances even on a higher intellectual level and therefore fitted to take a better position with higher wages than before their injury. The six months thus taken from a man's life would certainly be repaid to him a hundredfold. For my own part I greatly regret that this has not been found possible. I do not think a very great effort would have been necessary or that the organisation would have presented any enormous difficulty. I understand that the War Office refuses to adopt this plan. In so far as this is a criticism, I beg my right hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to understand that I do not lay this criticism at their door. I know too well how they have been working and their own points of view upon this and other matters.

Unless this House insists, we are left to the expedient of persuasion as it exists in the Warrant before us. I cannot help fearing that this persuasion will be found to be ineffective in many cases. By the terms of the Warrant half a man's pension may be docked if he refuses to undergo medical treatment. Medical treatment ought not to have been left optional. Let us for a moment consider what the persuasion amounts to comparatively in terms of cash. Take the case of the man I have already quoted as an example, with degree three of disablement, who has lost a leg or half an arm, who has three children, and who receives altogether 31s. 9d. a week. After what that man has gone through at the front, the indescribable hardships, the terrible suffering, and the awful experiences—nobody in England can really appreciate what these are unless even as a spectator, generally at a safe distance, like myself, he has seen something of these conditions—after his severe hardships and experiences the man will desire, perfectly naturally, when his time comes, above all to go back to his home, to his wife, to his children, to his parents, and to his pals. The French have a saying that the moment a man gets his discharge his one remark will be, "Give me my slippers." To induce a man to give up that hope, to defer that long-cherished desire and to undergo six months' fairly hard industrial training, all the harder because of his physical disability, he is offered a bonus of £6 10s. at the end of six months. To a man with 31s. 9d. a week certain and probably able to earn another £1 at some odd job, I cannot help greatly fearing that this inducement will be found to be quite insufficient in many cases.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

He gets the pension at the higher rate.

Sir H. NORMAN

I think the figure I quoted was correct—31s. 9d.

Sir J. WALTON

He does not get the 31s. 9d. if he refuses to go into training; he only gets half.

Sir H. NORMAN

No, the hon. Member is confusing treatment and training. He gets everything, whether he is trained or not. As to this inducement, while I appreciate to the full the kindness and sympathy which underlie it, and recognise it is an effort on behalf of the Pensions Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, failing compulsion, to do the best that lay in their power, I fear it will be insufficient to keep the men away from home for six months. May I say a word to the Committee on the allied subjects of treatment and training? It is treatment of what the French logically call functional wounds—that is to say, treatment of a man who has not necessarily lost a limb, but who has lost the use of its function, as, for instance, ankylosis of the joint. There is the practice of what is called physio-therapy, which consists of mechanical treatment, baths of different kinds, three or four different forms of electrical treatment, and, of course, massage. In many cases men may require to undergo perhaps two or three of these treatments simultaneously. A point not appreciated in this connection is that this treatment is often new, and that it is highly specialised. The ordinary general practitioner really knows very little more about it than we in this House know. It will be true to say that probably there are not a dozen medical men in the United Kingdom who are specialists in this treatment. It is quite useless to send men to an ordinary hospital or infirmary, because, in the first place, there would not be the apparatus, and, in the second place, there would not be the men who know how to use it. Unless we are to have an army of cripples as a result of the War, it is absolutely necessary to set up centres for this physio-therapy. The results are marvellous and astonishing when one sees them or learns of them statistically for the first time. Apart from the gravest kind of wounds or complete mental or nervous breakdown, as the right hon. Gentleman truly says, total disablement has almost ceased to exist. In France, in one centre—I am quoting the figures given to me officially by the eminent military medical man in charge—in four months 1,780 men who came in functionally wounded were returned to active duty and 290 were returned to the base for auxiliary duties, and the result of restoring those men to this degree of health, which amounted to less than 1 per cent. of disablement, according to their standard, reduced the liability of the State as between the present pensions and the pensions which would have been required had they not been treated, by a capital sura of no less than £400,000, and this in one centre in four months. But this treatment lasts perhaps half an hour a day—very seldom more than that. Is the man to be idle all the rest of the time? My right hon. Friend spoke of a man staying at the hospital a long time and getting no better and even, he went on to say quite truly, getting worse for being in the hospital. Why? For that very reason—I have seen hundreds of eases of this sort—because the man has a very short period of treatment during the day and all the rest of the day he is left totally idle and unoccupied, with the natural disastrous results which would follow to any one of us under those conditions. If the men are not to be idle all the rest of the time the training schools must be associated with treatment centres.

In the matter of training or vocational re-education, as it is becoming customary to call it, two things have to be borne in mind. This point, I think, has not received the attention it deserves either in France or in England. The first is that there is a very vital difference to a man between the loss of a leg and the loss of an arm. A man who loses a leg, for any job that does not require him to be moving about all day long, is just as good a man as he was before. A man who loses an arm is very gravely and severely handicapped, and I think in the Schedule to the Warrant the difference between these two is not made quite sufficiently great, and I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to have this point in mind and to consider once more whether in the Schedule he cannot make rather a greater difference between a man who has suffered the loss of a leg and the loss of an arm. I speak from personal experience of having seen many hundreds of men working in workshops, the great majority of them having lost a part of a leg or a whole leg, and some having lost an arm, and the difference between the two is always most striking. The second point is that the object of this vocational reeducation should not merely be to teach a man a trade, but to take advantage of having him there as a scholar to give him a better knowledge of the trade than is possessed in ordinary industrial life by most of the men practising that trade. Six months' training, as it should be in these centres—I am speaking now of a man with both arms—will send him back to the workshop technically superior to most men in it, and fit to become a foreman or overseer. I have had my attention called to numerous cases of this kind, mostly in France and some in England. For instance, a man who has been a tailor learns designing and cutting out, which I am told puts him at once upon a higher level. A mechanic becomes to a considerable extent an engineer. An electrician from being a rule-of-thumb man becomes a technician. A person learning typing and stenography becomes an expert secretary. As for a hairdresser, I am told he becomes an artist after training of this kind.

Occupations for one-armed men are necessarily much restricted, but they may become draughtsmen, they may become admirable clerks; and France is turning out from the great schools in Lyons, founded in December, 1916, by the new French Minister of Transport, a new scientific book-keeper. They have a large class there of men who are taught the most scientific and elaborate modern book-keeping. They become accountants. They are getting training far beyond that of any ordinary first-rate clerk or book-keeper. I know nothing about bookkeeping—it is really beyond my competence to appreciate it—but I was amazed at the detail and technicality of the teaching they were getting. The result is that every one of these men, and they have got as many as they can possibly teach, is snapped up instantly he leaves the class with a certificate; and they have so many applicants to enter this class that the director of the school told me they could not accept any more scholars until September, 1917. That is an exact example in point. The one-armed man may become a wireless telegraphist, a highly-skilled horticulturist, a bee-keeper or a poultry keeper, and there is a number of special occupations of modern scientific agriculture to which we ought to give great attention, and we may add a good many mechanical jobs. It might interest some members of the Committee to go to Roehampton, where they are doing such admirable work in supplying artificial limbs to replace natural limbs or to replace lost functions, and doing better work in some respects than any I saw in France, and see a one-armed man digging or playing cricket or playing a most excellent game at golf and knocking the ball all over the place. It is no exaggeration to say that with proper training the best men in many industries would be those who have suffered amputation as the results of wounds in this War. After the splendid results I have seen in France I am deeply distressed that, with far greater means, we in England seem unlikely to deal with this most urgent problem on sufficiently broad and courageous lines. I greatly fear we shall allow a great many of our maimed and crippled men to drift into becoming merely State pensioners or hangers-on of industry. For the moment they may prefer to be left alone, but I feel sure that in years to come they will bitterly reproach us.

Whether as regards treatment or training, the desired results will not be accomplished without absolute centralisation of knowledge and authority and the provision of properly equipped schools. As an example of what may be done by proper centralisation of knowledge and of authority, we have only to look at the blind in this country. Very fortunately for them they are all being dealt with in one central institution under the authority of one man, and we have been blessed in finding in Sir Arthur Pearson the man for the job. He has devoted himself with the admirable spirit of organisation, of which he was a master before he lost his sight, and with the most noble devotion to other blind men. We have in him a man who is turning out blind men restored to courage and hope again, and turning them out with such efficiency as I am sure would be amazing to anyone who has not had an opportunity of looking into what is being done. I can give one instance, which seems like a fairy tale, of a man who, before he was blind, was a hot water engineer. Now you would think if there was one mechanical job in the world which could not be performed by a totally blind man it was that of a hot water engineer. He has received technical training of various kinds, and he is now back in his old place, not, of course, doing exactly the same work, but doing work on a much higher intellectual plane, and he is earning twice what he did before and is in a far higher position in the firm. My right hon. Friend has hardly said one word about the organisation of this re-education. He said a medical board can tell what a man's injury is and how it can be cured. Of course, sometimes a medical board can, but sometimes it cannot. A medical board is very apt to make mistakes like other human beings. The medical profession, remarkable as it is, is by no means infallible. But, said my right hon. Friend, a board cannot tell what trade a man would be suitable for. I think he is mistaken in that view. I think it has been found in many cases that a board properly constituted can judge, from the degree and kind of disablement of a man and his mental qualifications and his previous education, to a very large extent what trade he should be re-educated for. Then my right hon. Friend said no one can say he would find a job at that trade. Of course not. An apprentice, or anybody who has learnt a trade, cannot be sure that he will find a job in that trade, but a trained man is much more likely to find a job than an untrained man.

My right hon. Friend referred to what he had succeeded in getting the War Office to agree to, and I congratulate him upon achieving what must have been a difficult task. The War Office, as I understand, undertakes to keep a man as an in-patient with manual curative treatment as long as accommodation permits. But, in the first place, there is not accommodation now, and what there is going to be when operations on a large scale are commenced, I do not know. I could quote figures, but it is quite well known. In the second place, the War Office offers, to men who are not discharged or about to be discharged, but men who may be returned to active service, to keep them in hospital with medical and curative manual treatment as long as it may be possible to restore them in fit health to the Army. But I do not think they must present that to us as a contribution to the treatment of the disabled man. We treat a disabled man when he is no longer any good for the Army and we desire to restore him, not to the fighting army but the industrial army. In the second place, he said, the men who are discharged are to be kept three weeks while other arrangements are made for them. That will be a very useful provision—to take care of the men while the local committees are making arrangements for them, and from that point of view it is to be warmly welcomed; but at the same time it is no contribution beyond that to the settlement of the problem. I believe that all the authorities who have looked into this matter are in substantial agreement that there must be a certain amount of military discipline over a man coming back under these circumstances, if you are to get the best out of him, or, rather, if you are to put the best into him with regard to his own future. Give him a pension, generous it may be, and no one will grudge it, but do not leave the other undone. Every French authority that I spoke to was of that view, though most of them believed it to be impossible under the conditions prevailing in French life.

The committee of the Council of the Royal Society of Medicine have just issued a circular on treatment. They speak, of course, with the highest authority in the Kingdom on the treatment side, and they lay stress upon the necessity for centralisation, both of authority and knowledge, in controlling all the different centres of treatment. I suppose there is no man in England who has more practical experience of technical training, and, since the War, in the training of soldiers, both those perfectly fit and those disabled, than Major Mitchell, the Director of Education of the London Polytechnic. He delivered a short time ago a most interesting address upon this subject, and his conclusion is this: That henceforth no disabled sailor or soldier be granted his final discharge from the Army except at his own request, and with the sanction of the authorities, which should be unreasonably withheld, but that he should retain his military status until be has been afforded the opportunity of being trained and equipped both intellectually and physically to earn for himself a competent livelihood. That is precisely the attitude I adopt from all that I saw, and the high authorities I spoke to in France, my own opinion is most strongly to the same effect. A great deal of excellent effort is being put forward in this country. My right hon. Friend mentioned some of those efforts; but that effort is sporadic, it is wholly lacking central authority and guidance, and it is still wholly inadequate. I spoke just now of the admirable work in the provision of artificial limbs that is being done at Roehampton. When I was there there was a list of 4,000 men waiting to get their artificial limbs. Is not that waiting list a disgrace to everyone of us?

Mr. BARNES

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men were actually waiting? He has given us the inclusive number of men in hospital, but that is another thing altogether.

Sir H. NORMAN

The figures were given to me some months ago. I was told that there were 10,000 men to be treated altogether. Of these 6,000 men had been treated at Roehampton, and, therefore, 4.000 were still waiting to be treated.

Mr. BARNES

Those 4,000 are men in the hospitals undergoing treatment. They are not ready for the supply of limbs. Two or three weeks ago 1,100 men were waiting for limbs, the hospitals having done with them.

Sir H. NORMAN

Of course, the figures given to me related to some months ago. Evidently from what the right hon. Gentleman says all these 4,000 men were not ready to go through. I submit to the Committee that the fact that 1,100 men are unable to get their artificial limbs is quite high enough to justify my criticism and to enable me to make my point. I visited the great Orthopædic Hospital at Hammersmith yesterday. I was there in the afternoon. They are doing a great deal of good work there, and I was favourably impressed with most that I saw there. But they are by no means properly equipped. They lack a great deal even after all this time. In the afternoon, for some reason of discipline or other, they find it impossible to work. The place was like a city of the dead in the middle of the afternoon. The Commanding Officer told me that there were a number of officers on the waiting list, and that there were also 250 men on the waiting list at that hospital alone who cannot get in. Therefore, the accommodation does not exist We have many first-rate technical schools and polytechnics in England, far more than in France. What is happening to these at the present time? They are being filled by the Army. Take the Polytechnic in Regent Street. True, it is training a number of disabled men most admirably. I speak in the highest possible terms of the work being done there, and it is no criticism of that institution what I am now saying. The Army has some 500 men there being trained as mechanics for the Air Service.

Sir C. NICHOLSON

Mr. Mitchell has had thousands of men through his hands.

Sir H. NORMAN

The figure given to me was that there were 500 men there, fit men from the Army, learning to become mechanics, therefore the accommodation was not available for disabled men. In my own Constituency last week I visited the technical school at Blackburn, which certainly is a particularly good one, and is under the direction of a highly competent man, who has just been elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. I mention that fact to show that it is on a high level. I said to him, "Are you training any disabled men here?" He replied, "We have no room. We have fifty mechanics from the Royal Naval Air Service. Let us see them." I saw these fit men being trained as mechanics. The Red Cross Society is giving magnificent and most munificent assistance, and is showing, as always, the utmost willingness to help in every possible way. But all these different efforts, scattered as they are, will fail of the best result without discipline for the men, and without co-ordination and unification. I recognise fully and gratefully the personal sympathy and effort of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), but I venture to make one final appeal, and that is that this House should override the decision of the War Office and settle the matter on the only lines that can certainly command success. We have the men and the women to do it, we have the brains and the money, and we have many institutions, and we can surely have the rest. All that is needed is the effort and the decision—the decision of this House. We owe a vast debt to these brave men. Let us not be satisfied with the easy method of paying it in money only. Let us not think with them of the present only. Let us think, which we can do better than they, of the future also. Let us retrieve our errors, recall as far as we can our wasted time, and organise ourselves to pay to the full our debt to the men to whom we owe so much.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. CLYNES

My right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister has been congratulated by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh upon the manner in which he stated the changed position of the House, and for the public work which he has done for so long in regard to pensions. I desire to associate myself with that. I think, too, that we may congratulate the Ministers attached to this Department and to other Departments of the Government upon the way in which they have responded to the pressure which this House has persistently used, and for the way in which they have now consented to give effect to the claims and demands which have been long promulgated by Members of this House belonging to all parties. This is one of the questions which, even if we could be debating it in time of peace, would be debated on a level quite above any party or political considerations. So far as I can speak for my colleagues who sit upon these benches, we all heartily recognise the special work relating to subjects such as this which has been done by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and done in his own special line by the right hon. Member (Sir H. Norman). We are indebted to them for the great good which millions of the working classes will be able to enjoy in the future. As a result of their reforming endeavour, and as a result of the pleas which they have made, I would like to add what little weight I may to the moving appeal which has just been addressed to the House, for the country and the Government to give more practical attention, even though it may involve still greater expense, to the duty of making whole, as far as possible, the maimed and wounded men as they return. As has been pointed out, immediately a man returns from the front he is preoccupied with other considerations. His outlook may not incline him to agree immediately to be taken to some place to be trained for the sake of his future existence, but after a little time, and when the country has begun to settle down again to its ordinary industrial pursuits that man would regret that he had not been anxious for training, and naturally would be the first to resent what he considered the neglect of the country in not having even forcibly trained him in his own interest and for his country's good. It has been shown already that something has been done to train soldiers, but there is really no apparatus, no machinery, no means in the way of structures, buildings, schools, or centres for the necessary training which these men require. However expensive it may be, I would press upon the Government the necessity for taking this question in hand immediately. This is not one of the things about which later on the Government can say they have been taken by surprise. All the facts and the probabilities are before them, and their duty seems to me to be so plainly shown that no excuse can be discovered for not doing in the future more than has already been attempted. I have to admit that, apart from large details like that which I have just touched upon, and many other finer details of great importance, this new document goes far to disarm a great deal of criticism in the discussion of this subject. It is an immense improvement upon the first proposals which were placed before the House in the early stages of the War, and even on those with their various improvements that we have had to consider from time to time. But those who heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh will readily conclude that this document, good as it is compared with what was bad, can yet be made far better, and I would suggest to the Government the necessity of taking into their favourable consideration the criticisms that were levelled on points of detail against this Warrant by my hon. Friend.

There is not, so far as I can find, in the Warrant any assurance that the Minister of Pensions is to control absolutely the administration of the Statutory Committee, and there is equally no assurance that the increase in the pensions and other allowances will not affect the grants made by the civil liabilities and other committees. These points should be made plain before the Debate closes. Beyond a mere reference to the Report by the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee (Sir H. Norman), there is no satisfactory statement before us as to what the Government are going to do in the way of taking in hand the training, education, and general schooling of the disabled soldiers who are coming back to this country in large numbers. I would draw attention to an important point in relation to the position of warrant officers and noncommissioned officers. There is a scale showing what the allowances for pensions were and what they are to be under the new scheme, and there is a qualification set forth that the scale is to be granted to the widows of men who have died of disease contracted or commenced while on active service, or which has been substantially aggravated by their active service. What is the meaning of substantially aggravated? Does it mean that if, in the opinion of some medical man or some expert the ailment or disease has only been aggravated, but not substantially aggravated, by active service he is not to receive a pension or allowance? Who, in short, is the person to determine the condition of aggravation as to whether it is substantial or not?

Another important point of detail is to be found on page 11 of the Report. I know so little about anatomy that I have always thought the foot to be a limb. This Schedule does not appear to concede that very simple fact. It begins by explaining that for the loss of two or more limbs payment is to be made on the basis of 100 per cent. A little lower down the column I find that if a man loses both feet he is to receive payment, not on the basis of 100 per cent., but 80 per cent. That, I think, is a reduction which cannot be justified. Two feet, as I take it, simply are two limbs, and if a man loses both he is entitled to the 100 per cent. basis on allowance, and a man who has suffered such a misfortune in this War as to lose both feet must surely present a spectacle so pitiable as to command the most sympathetic interpretation from any Minister with regard to his condition. On the whole I admit freely that this Warrant places the whole question of pensions and allowances in a position of far greater simplicity, fairness, and equity than it has ever been placed in before; but it may be that the Committee may not again before the War ends have an opportunity of dealing with these important points, and this is the occasion on which a Pensions Minister should use all his authority to ensure that the task which has fallen to his lot shall be carried out as completely and as reasonably as possible.

The cost should not be allowed to determine the matter. Fifteen million pounds at least will be the burden which the country will have to carry for meeting this debt for men who have served her. It may be a little more, but an undisputed estimate based on the figures supplied places the cost at £15,000,000 a year, or roughly three days' cost of the War. If it were two or three times £15,000,000 it is just that obligation which the nation should show itself ready, even enthusiastically ready, to meet. Whatever be the anxieties of those of us who have not had to undertake war service, whatever be the domestic and other discomforts arising from war conditions, our troubles, our service, our sacrifice, are as nothing compared to the personal service and the physical sacrifices which these millions of men had to make. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh made with great force a point as to the men whose disabilities are due to the ordinary activities of war, but to the rigour of war-training at home. Not long ago we used to see that men in certain industries were the least fit men. in the country. Thousands of them are drafted every week into the Army. We see them marching through the street to or from a particular station to go to their depots. They are men whom the War authorities in peace time would not even take the trouble to count, but they count them now. They are taken from these trades or businesses, and from all their habits and industries and forced into a new life not only in the ordinary sense, but with none of the domestic amenities to which they were accustomed; and they are put to work quite unlike the ordinary occupations which they follow. All these changes, in themselves combined, tend to produce disabilities, and disabilities for which this Warrant does not make reasonable recompense in the case of those who suffer. The offer of £100 maximum is not reasonable or fairly meeting the scale which you ought to have for the men who have been broken by the rigour of military training and the conditions of militarism which you have imposed.

After having done our best and after, as I hope, we have done full justice to the men who are maimed and to the women who are left behind, the situation will be this, that large numbers, hundreds of thousands, or a million or two, of people will be in direct receipt of a certain amount of State money for war services rendered or for personal sacrifices made. What we on these benches would like to see avoided is that any private employer of labour should be able to take advantage of that public payment as has been done in the past. The fact that a man was a pensioner was sufficient cause for an employer seeking to have his labour at less than the market price. So far as he can work after the War the soldier as a worker should receive the full value of the services which he renders, and the Government ought to take action, by whatever means it can, to prevent the labour of women who may receive allowances, or prevent the work of men soldiers who are receiving pensions, being taken advantage of by any employer of labour, and that no employer shall be able to turn to his own profit the benefit which the House of Commons is conferring now on the men who are serving the country in the various theatres of the War.

Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON

I desire to add my tribute of appreciation to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions for the admirable clarity of the speech which he addressed to the Committee this afternoon. It is an exceedingly complex subject, and though I have sat in this House a good many years I do not think that I have ever known a subject so admirably and clearly explained as were the different points of the Warrant which the right hon. Gentleman put before us. Whether we agree with him or not, or whether we have any criticism to offer on the provisions of the Warrant, I am quite sure that we all understand what the right hon. Gentleman is driving at, and know exactly where we shall all stand, supposing that the Warrant is passed in the form in which it is at present. It is quite impossible to discuss such a complicated document as this—a document of something like twenty-eight pages—in one or two sittings. I do not think it possible to touch on all the points. Whatever criticisms are made now, the only way in which this document can be judged fairly is by the experience which we shall all gain by dealing with the different cases which turn up and seeing if the document really covers all the points that have been raised; and I have not any doubt that as time goes on the right hon. Gentleman will find it necessary to alter it in more than one respect.

I intend now to deal only with one portion of this Warrant. That is the portion which deals with disablement. I was forestalled to a certain extent by the perfectly admirable speech, to which I listened, by the hon. Member for Black- burn (Sir H. Norman). He has had vast experience of this question in France, and speaking, after a certain amount of experience of it in England, the conclusions I have come to are almost identical with those which he has submitted to the Committee. So long as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was Secretary of State for War I lived in the hope that the War Office would undertake this job itself, and would guarantee to see that every man who had been maimed in this War should not be discharged from hospital until he could be sure that everything that skill could do to fit that man for civil occupation had been done, and that during that time he should be given the proper and appropriate training to fit him for occupation when his disablement allowed him to work. Unfortunately, I understand that all that has gone by the board, and that the feeling of the War Office at the present time is that they cannot undertake it. It has got to be done by civilians, and the difficulty is that the Army has mopped up all the hospitals, doctors, and nurses, and that it is difficult to see how it is possible for the workers to be got together. I feel quite clearly that this work ought not to be shifted off the shoulders of the War Office on to civilian shoulders, and that it should remain at the War Office at the present time.

I find myself in hearty agreement with the Member for Blackburn, but, as the War Office do not feel capable of undertaking this work, there is only one other course which can be taken, and that is the course which the Minister of Pensions has taken, namely, the element of penalty and the element of pecuniary inducement. A man is I to lose so much if he does not go through the treatment which is prescribed for him, though I am not quite sure that is the best way to approach the matter; but it is undoubtedly true, and certainly from what I have seen, that every endeavour should be made to get the man to go through the appropriate treatment to make him a fairly sound and whole man. With regard to the actual training of men for different trades, I want to put before the Committee some of the practical difficulties which still exist, and I hope they will forgive me if I appear to be egoistic. I speak from the experience I have had in dealing with this question in the county of London. I would like to add my voice to what the hon. Member for Blackburn said in tribute to Major Robert Mitchell. I think there are very few people who know the enormous debt of gratitude the country owes to that gentleman. It may be interesting to know that at the beginning of the War he started by rescuing several thousand British subjects from the country of Switzerland, bringing them back to this country in safety. He then turned his attention to training men for the Flying Corps, and the War Office put the whole matter in his Hands, and allowed him to have training establishments all over the country, with the result that he trained something like 18,000 men for the Flying Corps, and he told me the other day that there was not an aerodrome in England or on the Continent in which some of the men he had trained are not at work. He is now engaged at Roehampton in training the men there, and I cannot contribute higher praise than that which has already been paid by the hon. Member for Blackburn to the work he has done.

I have been at the Roehampton hospital several times, and have seen what can be done in the way of fitting these men for work that they might be able to do. The secretary at Roehampton told me that there had passed through his hands three classes of men, one class of younger men who were ready to go to work anywhere, representing 35 per cent. of the number stationed in Roehampton; another class of men whose jobs had been kept open for them after the War, which represents 40 per cent. who have passed through the hospital, and the remaining 25 per cent. mostly consisted of married men who would be very glad to have work, only it must be found somewhere in the neighbourhood of their own homes. Putting the figures together you can fairly calculate that of the cases at Roehampton, something like 45 per cent. would require to be provided with work in the future. It is a very open question as to how far these figures regarding Roehampton will apply to all the rest of the country, or if they will apply in the same way to men suffering from disease causing disablement. I think that is very doubtful, and the difficulty of finding employment will be rather greater with those who are suffering from disease than those who have lost a limb. Major Mitchell, I am glad to say, joined our Disablement Committee, and he took the opportunity to take down to Roehampton, a certain number of persons connected with various trades, both employers and trade unionists, with the object of showing them the work that was being done at that institution, and how the men were being trained for various employments. After the visit, both the employers and the representatives of the trade unions said to Major Mitchell that he had only to tell them what he wanted them to do, and they were ready to do the very best they could. A conference of trade unions and employers in the various trades was called, and they discussed the matter with the London County Committee. In a fortnight they met again and a plan was submitted and accepted. The groups of trades represented undertook to see every man sent to them by local sub-committees to ascertain if he was fitted to go into the trade which he wanted to follow. Of course, if he could go back to his own work, there was nothing more to be done, but if he wanted to enter upon another kind of work obviously he would have to be trained for it. The man would be sent to a technical institute where he would be trained, the expenditure being met by an allowance provided by the Treasury, while the panel committees undertook to supervise the men during their training. After the training had been completed, they undertook not only to find a man a job, but also to settle between themselves the rate of wages at which he was to be paid. I think my right hon. Friend will look upon that as practically clearing away, as far as London is concerned, all labour difficulty about settling down those men who require training after recovering their health. The next difficulties that occurred were with the War Office, and I went to Sir Francis Lloyd, who very kindly gave me passes to the military hospitals in London, so that I might see the men in those hospitals before discharge and find out what they wanted to do. I was told, however, that this scheme would have worked well previous to the 1st of November last. I asked why, and I was informed that the men were not discharged from the Army from hospital if they were in Class C 3, which means men who can only undertake sedentary occupations at home, or above that class. A man below Class C 3 is practically very little use to me for training purposes.

I inquired where all these men were going to, and I was told that they were being sent off to the depots. I remarked that the depots must be full at that time, and received the answer that this was so, but that I could not be put in touch with the depots nor with the men. These depots were scattered all over the country, and owing to the Territorial system having broken down London men were in depots all over the country—York, Liverpool, and other places. It was impossible for me to get an organisation to go all over the country to visit all these depots and to pick up the men who were London men and who were about to be discharged. I then went back to the War Office and suggested whether it would not be possible, when these London men were discharged at any depot anywhere in the country, that they should be sent up to London to a clearing station, where they could remain for something like a fortnight under military control. I pointed out that it would then be possible for us to get into touch with them and find out what they wanted to do and to put them into communication with the panel committees with a view to enable their training for a future occupation to be carried out. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that this work should be undertaken at the earliest possible moment. The pressure is very great even now. I find that owing to the large number of agencies in existence advertising for men that those who pass through the Labour Bureaux obtain employment of a temporary nature and mostly in blind-alley occupations. That is a thing that ought to be avoided. But the pressure is so great and the wages are so enormously high that the temptation to, men to take such jobs is very great, and they do so without knowing what is to happen to them in the future. What we wish to do is to train men for permanent occupations, otherwise their chance will be gone directly the War comes to an end by the able-bodied men who come back, and they would be simply swept out of the way. It is only by undertaking it at this moment that we shall avoid the chaos which. I fear, is going to arise. I would, therefore, urge my right hon. Friend to bring all the influence he can to bear to help those who are trying to arrange for the training of these men in useful occupations where they can obtain permanent work. I hope he will help us to carry on that work to a successful issue.

Captain GWYNN

I should like to offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, particularly from the point of view of those who are serving in the trenches, because the Royal Warrant will make it less disagreeable for an officer to ask his men to take risks. Although men disappear from the ranks one does not lose interest in them, and under the conditions laid down by this Warrant their future will certainly be much pleasanter than would have been possible under the old Warrant. I welcome particularly the arrangement for training the men. It will give the younger men, of whom there are many, particularly in the New Army, a real opportunity of bettering themselves in civilian life. Speaking, as I do, from the point of view of one living in a low-wage country—in other words, from the point of view of Ireland—I say there can be no doubt at all that this scheme does provide generous treatment. I do not know that as much can be said of it from I the Engish point of view, but at any rate it does enable us to look disabled men in the face when we meet them in the streets.

Coming to details, I wish to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman, because I am not sure if I made my meaning quite plain to him. As I understand it, under this Warrant, if a man is pensioned at the flat or standard rate, that rate can be changed automatically from May onwards. What I want to know is whether application is to be made to come under the new principle of pre-war earnings, and does the right hon. Gentleman mean that such applications should not be made until after May? I assume that the applications ought to be made straight away, and if I were asked a question on that point I should advise the man to send in his application at once. Am I right, however, in understanding that the right hon. Gentleman says that no such application should be made until after May, and that if a man does apply before that he will not be doing himself any kind of service?

Mr. BARNES

The correct interpretation of what I said is, that we cannot deal with applications made now.

Mr. HOHLER

Take the case of a man who was pensioned within six months of the commencement of the War. Will he come under this Warrant?

Mr. BARNES

Certainly, everyone will come under it.

Captain GWYNN

Is he to apply?

Mr. BARNES

I think there is no application necessary at all. The man automatically comes on the increased scale.

Captain GWYNN

My point is this. There are people at present pensioned on the flat rate. Can they apply to be pensioned on the pre-war earnings alternative plan? As I understand it the right hon. Gentleman docs not want them to make application at present; he wants them to hold back the application till after May. I put this question simply for the convenience of people who have to advise men in such matters. I take it that that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman. As to the Schedules, there has been some criticism and, obviously, the effect of the Schedules must depend upon the degree in which the Government will be able to provide mechanical appliances. I am not sure whether the Government are not merely to provide the mechanical appliances in the first instance, but to keep the men permanently supplied with them. For instance, in the case of a man with artificial feet, will he always be supplied with them? That is a thing we ought to be told now.

I should like to add my agreement to what was said by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) as to the Clause which provides that a man shall get 14s. a week only for a certain period, and then the separation allowance will drop. I submit that we ought not to inflict penalties on men for what is not their fault. Everybody knows that real cases of hardship arise again and again, and that there is delay which is in no sense the fault of the man concerned. It appears to me that that Clause, as it stands, inflicts a hardship which cannot be justified. These cases will arise again and again, and the proposal of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh for dealing with them ought, in my opinion, to be accepted. The separation allowances should be allowed to run on, even where the man has been discharged.

On the other hand, I do not agree with the hon. Member's objection to the attitude taken up by the Pensions Minister in regard to men who are discharged as unfit. There has clearly been some misapprehension on this point unless indeed, I myself, have misunderstood the Warrant. The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Manchester talked of a man who entered the Army, but who, owing to the conditions of the Service, was disabled and flung out. He said that for a man like that there should be a maximum of £100. As I understnd it, if a disabled man can show that his disablement is due to the conditions of service, or that it was aggra- vated by those conditions, he will be pensioned in just the same way as a wounded man. But there are cases which are familiar to every officer of men who have I been passed into the Army in a hurry, and, after being there two or three weeks or months, are found to be totally unfit for service owing to their condition before they entered the Army. It is said that these men are to get up to £100. I rather think that many of them would consider themselves well off if they got £5, and such a sum would quite meet the justice of the case. Most of them would be greatly surprised if they were told they were going to get the larger amount. It is the experience of many officers that these men, while they have been with the Army, have been a great nuisance. Generally speaking, however, we have to discriminate in these matters between men who volunteered knowing themselves perfectly well to be unfit for soldiering. We have known scores of cases where men thought they would try, and when they found the Service too hard at once sought to get out of it. After all, medical unfitness to a large extent is a matter of will in many of these cases. I have seen men serving very well, because they have been willing, and, had their willingness been less, they would soon have been discharged as medically unfit. They could have got themselves discharged, and would have done so had it not been for the spirit that was in them.

But I am sure that the vast majority of the people whom this Clause will affect are people who came in and did not render the country any service. They were there simply by mistake. The country made the mistake, and must, of course, pay for it. But it has not done the men any real injury, and a gratuity would meet the justice of the case. I do not think it is fair to ask that they should be permanently pensioned and become a charge on the country because the medical officer employed by the Government made a mistake in regard to them. We should not be doing a service to the Army if we took the view on this point put. forward by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. There is, however, this limitation to what I am saying: You may have a man who has been brought in as a conscript—brought in by the operation of the law. He has wrongly been passed by the doctor. It is quite possible that, though his health may not have suffered, he may have had great injury inflicted upon him in his profession. I have known cases in which that has occurred—cases where men who have been compelled to join at very great inconvenience to themselves have been permanently injured in their professional prospects by being compelled to join, although it was very doubtful whether they could be of any use in the Army. I think a generous view should be taken in cases like that, and I am not quite sure that in such cases £100 would be the measure of the loss. I should like to renew my congratulations and thanks to the Ministers who are responsible for this Warrant.

Mr. H. P. HARRIS

I also desire to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent new departure which he has been able to announce to-day. No doubt the Warrant is open to certain criticisms, but, generally speaking, it marks a great improvement on what existed before. It is certainly framed on generous lines, and it cures some of the defects which existed in the previous Warrant. The point which I confess appeals to me, both in the Royal Warrant and in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, is the fact that it is recognised that the problem of the disabled soldier must be treated as a whole. We have been too apt to consider the question of pensions as one thing and the question of refitting the men for civil life as another, but in point of fact they are closely connected. However liberal your scale of pensions may be, justice will not be done unless adequate provision is made for assisting men who need help in connection with their health, training, or employment, and unless the pensions scheme is judiciously framed and sympathetically administered it will hinder instead of promoting what is of great importance to the State as well as to the men themselves, namely, their restoration to health and industrial efficiency.

The defect of the old system was, I think, its uncertainty, and it seemed to be based on the principle that the greater the effort the man made for himself the less the State would do for him. II a man improved his earning capacity by accepting training or treatment he was liable to have his pension docked in proportion to the improvement in his earning capacity. That was a fatal atmosphere for local committees to work in. The men were not to blame. After all, we are dealing with war-shaken men, and it often requires a much more tremendous effort than some people realise for a man to undertake training or treatment when perhaps his whole physical and mental condition makes him, ask only to be left alone. The new Royal Warrant, I hope, changes all that. Definite pensions are assigned for a much larger number of specific injuries than before, and in the case of injuries which are not specified, or in the case of disease, pensions are to be assessed at a degree held most closely to represent the disablement corresponding to the injury or disease. It may be difficult to make these assessments fair in actual practice, but I understand that the pensions will be fixed as soon as possible, and there is this very important provision, that when a permanent pension has been granted it shall not be altered on account of any change in the man's earning capacity, whether resulting from training or other cause. I cannot help thinking that that puts the pensions system on a sounder basis. It is fairer to the men, and it will conduce to their advantage in other ways, and in the long run it will be found to conduce also to the advantage of the State.

There are one or two points upon the Warrant itself which I want to raise. I want to know whether Regulation 6 is intended to take the place entirely of Regulation 12 (b) of Part II. of the Statutory Committee's Regulations. Must every man in future be certified before he can get a special course of medical treatment, or may local committees give a man a course of medical treatment and pay him allowances as they have now the power to do under that Regulation? The matter is important for this reason, that there are cases which the local committees can now deal with under the instructions of the Statutory Committee which do not appear to be covered by this Regulation. The cases I refer to are those of men who are temporarily unfit and require medical care and attention, but not such a special course of treatment as is contemplated in Clause 6. I should like also to ask who is to decide whether a man is to have training in a technical institute? At the present time the local committees decide that, and they have power to pay allowances. Now I want to come to what is really a very important point. I want to know how the words "attributable to, or aggravated by military service" are to be construed in future. Are they to be construed strictly against the man or are they to be construed with some proper regard to the fact that he has been admitted into the Army as fit? There is a statement in one of the instructions of the Statutory Committee to this effect: It must be assumed that the Admiralty and the War Office will satisfy all just claims by the grant of a State pension. But I am bound to confess, after having dealt with a good many applications for temporary allowances in cases where no State pension has been granted, that I do not think that assumption is justified. I do not think the State is morally justified in refusing a pension to the men in a good many of these cases. I have been into the pre-war medical and industrial history of some of these men, and I do not think the State has been justified in refusing them pensions. There is an element of doubt in many of these cases, but where there is a real doubt the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the men and they ought to receive pensions. I quite agree that there are a large number of cases where there is no claim whatever for a State pension, and they may fairly be met either by a gratuity or a compassionate allowance, but I hope my hon. Friends will be able to say that, in construing these important words, regard will be had to the fact that these men, after all, have been admitted into the Army as fit, and that they ought not to be turned down, as the phrase goes, unless there is a clear case for so doing. I should like to say, as the right hon. Gentleman asked for an opinion, that I am attracted by the proposal which he is making in Clause 10 (2), by which he hopes to secure medical benefit to women. I have not had much time to think about it, but at any rate the idea attracts me, and I hope he may be able to carry it to fruition.

I want now to turn to the other side of the problem. Speaking on the Board of Pensions Bill, I said that the worst feature of the situation which we were then discussing was the delay on the part of the Government in deciding on measures necessary for the treatment and training of the men. For example, the Statutory Committee, as long ago as July, 1916, told us that they had prepared a scheme of specialist treatment, and had other measures in hand. That scheme has never seen the light of day because the idea was started—a very excellent idea—that the War Office should retain men in the Service for the purpose of the specialist treatment. I never could see how that would help the men who had already been discharged from the Army, and it has raised a question which has been very difficult of decision. I am glad we have had some statement of policy to-day from the right hon. Gentleman. I gather that it is not found practicable for the War Office to do very much in this matter. I regret it, because they have undoubtedly powers of discipline which a civilian organisation does not possess, but I want to say that if a civilian organisation has got to face the greater part of the burden, then we ought to look the difficulties in the face and do our best to meet them. I suppose the statutory local committees are to continue within their sphere to perform the statutory duty which rests upon them of making provision for the care of disabled men. The local committees have been doing what they can, and I think they have done a great deal, considering the very little help they have had. They have been able to do this thanks largely to the generosity of the medical profession and of a great many institutions, but as chairman of a local committee I am here to say that the means at our disposal for providing for the health and training of disabled men are quite inadequate.

In the first place, we want a great deal more information from the military authorities than we get now. What has been happening is that the Army has been scattering over the country men who are tuberculous, epileptic, neurasthenic, and suffering from other disorders, and the local committees have had to pick them out as best they may with no information from the military authorities whatsoever. There are a very large number of men discharged from the Army who need further treatment. I am told that a very interesting inquiry has been hold at Leeds by a Special Medical Board, and that the number of cases of men found to require further treatment was 46 per cent. We are now told that the men are to be kept in hospital for three weeks, and that the local committees will have the opportunity of seeing the men and ascertaining what arrangements are necessary to be made for their treatment. I do not know how that is going to work. Will all the men be brought to London that the London Committee are to deal with, and are they to be provided with all the information which the Army medical authorities have in their possession? I hope so. Things want working out very carefully, because at the present time the arrangements are most unsatisfactory. I was very glad to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend as to the steps he is taking to pro- vide the necessary institutions, because it is no good telling local committees to provide for disabled men, and it is quite impossible to attach any penal condition unless you provide the institutions necessary for the treatment. There are a large number of neurasthenics, epileptics, and tuberculous people who are awaiting treatment at the present time.

8.0 P.M.

There is another point upon which I think the Army authorities might do more. They might really give more information to the men before they are discharged, information both as to their pensions and as to opportunities of training and treatment which are available at the present moment. The little card which I have in my hand is given to each man. On one side is printed "Employment card," and there is a space for the name and regimental number of the man and for the name and address of the local committee. On the other side is practically an abstract of the Act of Parliament that local committees have been set up to make provision for the care of disabled men. This card really strikes the wrong note, because what many men require now is not help to find employment—that is quite easy—but help to restore themselves to health and efficiency, and I do hope that something better than this may be given to them. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman), in his report, makes the suggestion that every soldier on his discharge should be given a book containing certain information, and I certainly desire to support that suggestion. The men ought to be informed of the opportunities for treatment and for training which are available for them. Not a man now knows that the local committees at the present time can maintain them and their families while they are receiving treatment and training. The Government are making new proposals, and surely the men ought to be informed of that. The Government have got to take more trouble to make their pension system understood, and to use every means to induce men to take the treatment and training. I am told that the Special Medical Board, which sat at Leeds, found that a great many of the men are already engaged on work, often highly remunerative, and fail to follow-out the suggestions of the Board, unless some stimulus is applied. The Government are trying to supply the stimulus as regards treatment, by imposing the condition that half the pension may be stopped if the man does not take the treatment. They are trying to apply the stimulus as regards training by saying that he shall have a bonus if he undertakes training. I do not know whether those means will be sufficient. Experience will show. I think, however, we ought to endeavour to make it clear to men that it is "a penny wise and pound foolish" policy to neglect opportunities to improve their physical condition for the sake of high wages which probably will not be available for them after the War is over. Nothing can really be successful in this country without propaganda work, whether it is War Loan or anything else. I do, therefore, hope that the Ministry of Pensions will direct their attention to this subject, and will do their best to persuade the men of the great importance of getting themselves restored to the highest possible degree of physical efficiency. The object of that is not to save money on pensions. The object is to secure the greater happiness of the men, and also the greater industrial strength of the nation.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

I must commence with a word to swell the chorus of congratulation to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues upon the substantial advance which has been secured in this now pensions Warrant. I do not say that I regard it as a final settlement of this question. We are not likely to have any final settlement for many years. The War is cutting deep into the social life of the country, with all its intricate and complex domestic arrangements; we will always be discovering new cases which have to be met for a long time to come. We will have this question with us as a living question for many years. But this Warrant does place the scheme upon a strong foundation, and one which enables it to be built up on sound principles and on clear lines. The Minister who is chiefly responsible for this Warrant is, as all of those who have followed his work since the commencement of the War know, not new to this work. He has not merely taken an interest in it since he became Minister. From the very beginning of the War ho has made this question his own. All of us who have studied his work during these years can recognise his hand in the lines in which this Warrant has been framed. He has not been merely a figurehead, but an initiating and stimulating influence.

Those of us who have followed the proposals which he has advocated in the past must confess that the Warrant does not contain all that he has advocated. Perhaps it does not even contain all that he had wished or would wish. But, as I said, it does represent a large and substantial advance, and it does settle the scheme upon sound lines. I rather emphasise that at the beginning, because the remainder of what I have to say will be more critical. It is necessary that we should pick out points of criticism, because, as is quite clear, this is a draft Warrant; it is obviously open to amendment; and, in fact, the whole object of our discussion to-day is to see if points can be found upon which useful Amendments can be made. Therefore, if the remainder of my remarks are more critical, it must not be taken as detracting from the very warm welcome indeed which, as a whole, I give to this Warrant. As I do not wish to take long, I will only refer to two points. The first is an inquiry. It is obvious that the Regulations of the Statutory Committee in regard to supplementary pensions will have to be very considerably altered. I do not now ask for a statement of the details in which they are going to be altered, but seeing the Department has had this scheme before it for a considerable time framing it it must know its own mind on the subject. We ought, therefore, to be given at the earliest possible moment a draft of the alterations which it is proposed to make in the Regulations under Part I. These two things—the Warrant itself, and the Regulations of the Statutory Committee—are not separate things; they are taken together. They are part of one whole scheme, and I think as soon as it can be eventually worked out we ought to have those amended Regulations before us, so that we may know how they are to be effected.

The next point is not so much an inquiry as it is a criticism. I will take only one case. It is the case of the parents of an apprentice or a student who was not earning anything before he joined the Army, in which case the parent could not be said to be dependent in any material degree. This case has often been mentioned in the House. It is a very sad case and a very urgent one. The parents of these boys, many of them poor and in straitened circumstances, have made great sacrifices and endured great privation in order to equip their children for a better career in the world; in order, it may be, to apprentice them to a trade or to send them to a university to qualify for one of the learned professions. There are other parents who have not done that, who either from necessity or from choice have sent their children right from school into some trade or industry where they could earn comparatively large wages. Those parents were, therefore, right away from a very early stage dependent upon their children. Those parents are well provided for by this Warrant.

Mr. HOHLER

No.

Mr. SCOTT

I think so. There is, however, a considerable improvement in this Warrant on the state of affairs that existed before. The interruption rather takes me from my point, but I will just refer to it The parent who, under the previous Regulations was partially dependent, could not receive a pension unless he or she was wholly or partially incapable of earning their living and was in necessitous circumstances. That was the previous Regulation. I think I have the assent of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench. The restriction I refer to has been swept away. Under the new Warrant we find it is provided that a wholly or partially dependent parent may be granted a pension within the limit of pre-war dependence not exceeding 15s. per week. The limit before was, I think, 10s. There are thus two respects in which there has been very substantial advance indeed—in regard to those parents who sent their children to work when they left school. We come to the case of the parent who did not send his boy to work at once, but who made the sacrifices for his education or apprenticeship to which I have alluded. The position of that parent is improved also by this Warrant, but not to the same extent as that of the other parents. It is provided here that the parent of an apprentice or a student may receive a pension of 15s. a week provided the parent is wholly or partially incapable of self-support from infirmity or age. I do not understand why that limitation should be imposed upon the parent who has made the larger sacrifices. Surely if there is any parent who is deserving of comfort and consolation it is the one who has rendered service to the State, the parent who has made continuous sacrifices and suffered privations to give his or her child a better opportunity in the future. That, I think, is a serious defect in the scheme. I hope the matter will be reconsidered, and that some amendment will in due course be announced.

Mr. D. MILLAR

The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to Article 51 of the new Warrant. I desire just to add one word to what he has said. I do not think we have yet had from the Front Bench any reply to a question which was put earlier this afternoon as to when payment will be made to the parent who becomes incapable of self-support from infirmity or age. I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to reply. May we have it clearly from him whether that payment is to be made only at the date the soldier dies, if the parents are then incapable of self-support, or may it be at a later date?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Perhaps it would clear the ground if I were to answer that question at once. There never was any intention of limiting the cases to those to which the parent was incapable of self-support at the time the man died. If at any period later the parent becomes incapable of self-support then the pension will be paid. If the words in the Warrant are not clear I undertake to make the thing clear before it is finally dealt with.

Mr. MILLAR

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the undertaking he has given. I think he will agree the point is a very important one so far as this particular and very deserving class is concerned. Consideration should be given to such parents, not only at the date of the death of the soldier, but if at any later stage they should become incapable of self support. I should like to make one or two further criticisms. I attach importance to the views which have been suggested already to the Minister of Pensions by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Gwynn) with regard to Section 7, Sub-section (2), of the New Pensions Warrant, which deals with soldiers "discharged as medically unfit for further service, such unfitness being neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service." The suggestion which has been made to the Committee is that, while the gratuity of £100 may be quite a generous amount in many cases, there may be exceptional cases where men—to use the words of the Minister of Pensions—should be put back where you found them. In order to put them back where you found them— in order to place them in exactly the same position as they were before, it may be necessary to go even further than £100. I put that forward as a very reasonable suggestion, because, while it is true that many of these men have been passed through bad medical examination, in certain cases through hiding their own complaints, and in a comparatively few cases through their own fault, you have an enormous number of cases where, undoubtedly, they have been taken away from their work, and have been passed into the Army as fit, although obviously unfit, and if they have suffered as the result of that, I respectfully submit that they are entitled to full consideration, and to be put in exactly the same position as before. I do not think that is always possible on £100. You might have to go a good deal further in a number of cases, and I trust the Committee will agree in the view that this is one of the points in which the Warrant might be amended to great advantage.

I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the recognition for the first time of the pre-war earning capacity as the basis upon which the pension is to be awarded, and also upon the increase in the scale all round. I think the provision which grants now to every widow £3 on the death of the soldier will be very greatly appreciated, and that the training allowance which is to be given to widows will encourage them in many instances to undertake useful work, and so be of great advantage in that respect. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) referred to the question of pensions to widows and children not being claimable as a right, but only as a reward for service. I think there is a good deal to be said for the view that these pensions ought undoubtedly to be regarded as a right to which those persons are entitled. The difficulty which I can see may be associated with such a course is that you may have to put in a clause of forfeiture in the event of misconduct, and so forth, arising. I should like the hon. and gallant Member to tell us whether the idea of this Clause is to try to avoid the necessity of suggesting any forfeiture by considering each case upon its merits, and by doing everything that is possible to secure that the pensions shall be continued even under circumstances where it may be necessary to give some kind of warning. Personally, I should very much prefer that the pension was given as a right in every case, and I think probably that is the view with which the majority of the members of the Committee would agree.

I desire for a few moments to pass to the question of the treatment of disabled soldiers. On this point I was a little disappointed, I must say, with the otherwise excellent and most lucid speech we had from the Minister of Pensions. He told us that in his view pension was not the main thing, but that there was something more important even than that, and that was the training and fitting the men who have been disabled. I agree. He referred to what was being done in the ease of a good many disabled, especially totally disabled, men, but he did not tell us, and I hope the hon. and gallant Member may be able to tell us, what has been done by the Statutory Committee and the local pensions committees in connection with schemes which have been reported by them, and which ought to be brought into immediate operation. I do not think it can be too much impressed upon the Minister of Pensions that this is a very urgent question which brooks on delay. The question of training disabled men as they are returned—and they are coming in in large numbers in every populous district—requires to be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. While there are many institutions which are dealing with particular cases, we have not yet had in the House any general statement as to the schemes which are being worked out by local committees, which have been approved by the Minister of Pensions, and which are going to be put into operation at the earliest possible moment.

The Minister of Pensions is not in his place at the moment. I had hoped to appeal to him as representing a Scottish constituency, but no doubt the hon. and gallant Member who represents the Department will show an equal interest for Scotland if the question is put to him by a Scottish Member. Personally I am of opinion that in Scotland we have not heard sufficient to satisfy us that everything is being done that could be done by the Statutory Committee and by the Ministry of Pensions to advance our Scottish schemes. I should like to refer particularly to one very important scheme which has been suggested, in the county of Lanark, one of the divisions of which I represent, in dealing with disabled men. We have had the advantage there of an oiler from the district committee for the middle ward to place at the disposal of the Statutory Committee, for the purpose of training disabled soldiers, the buildings and land in a very well-equipped sanatorium and farm colony about eight miles out from Glasgow, known as the Hairmyres Farm Colony. The hon. and gallant Member is acquainted with the facts of the case. That scheme was a very large scheme undertaken by the district committee, before the War began, in connection with their sanatorium treatment. It cost about £100,000. It is an unique scheme of its kind, because it combines, along with large, commodious sanatorium buildings, a farm colony of 200 acres, with facilities to acquire further land beyond. There is a forest nursery of 9 acres, a poultry farm, a large mixed farm, and all the opportunities for the training of disabled soldiers in horticulture, sylviculture, and agriculture in this one particular colony. What I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Member is, whether a scheme of that kind will not be made use of immediately. It is not necessary in this case to provide for any additional capital outlay. You have here got the offer of a scheme which affords the particular advantage that it is available now. Some of the buildings are not quite complete, but they will be complete, it is hoped, at a very early date.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING

Is it limited to disabled soldiers in that district?

Mr. MILLAR

It could be made available for the populous counties in the West of Scotland. It has been offered, and the papers are before the Minister for Pensions, and he will have an opportunity of satisfying himself whether this place is suitable for the purpose. I have suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should go and see it, and I am sure if he visits the place he will agree that it is eminently well suited for the purpose. There are technical instructors there, and the work is carried on in connection with the West of Scotland Agricultural College. This institution and other facilities have already been provided without the necessity of any further capital outlay, and by reason of its situation it would serve a very wide area in the West of Scotland. In connection with this particular scheme there are many different departments of work open to disabled soldiers. Experiments have been made by a number of soldiers who were obtained through one of the Glasgow Labour Exchanges—and it was found in regard to afforestation work especially that they were extraordinarily well suited to the work after the training they had received in the district I have referred to. There is in connection with this scheme a big afforestation area at camps where the men could be put to work.

It has been suggested that there were not many men who, after receiving their pensions, would willingly seek work and that you would have to give them some inducement. I do not believe that that is generally true, for inquiries at the Labour Exchanges have shown us that in a good many instances there are men anxious to obtain work who have not been able to obtain it from the Labour Exchanges. I can give as an illustration an inquiry made last year during the statistical months May and June, 1916, where at one of the Labour Exchanges one hundred and eight discharged soldiers presented themselves wishing to obtain employment, and for quite a long time no employment had been offered to them. It may be that conditions have changed and that there are more opportunities now. A lot of these men are very keen to take up work. It is possible some of them require special inducement to attract them to this particular type of work. The problem of providing the necessary facilities for training these men requires to be dealt with at the very earliest possible moment, so that the men will not get out of touch, as some may do, with working habits, and settle down to their pension without any desire to take up further work. I am sure that I am speaking to a very sympathetic Minister, who is prepared to consider any proposals which are likely to be successful when put into operation; may I ask him whether he would not at least tell us how far in Scotland the Board of Agriculture and the agricultural colleges are cooperating in this matter with the Statutory Committees. I understand that at Aberdeen the agricultural college has offered to train a number of discharged soldiers in agriculture, and I understand that other agricultural colleges in Scotland have followed suit. We are very anxious to know what is actually being done in regard to the schemes which are about to be brought in operation, and whether any large scheme in Lanarkshire will be made available at the earliest possible moment to meet West Scotland requirements.

While we have got a lot of good work done by the Statutory Committee and subcommittees, and while there are a lot of voluntary agencies also doing excellent work, it seems to me that some co-ordination is required all over the country. This is a national obligation, and while the Statutory Committee is doing excellent work and covering much ground, there are many different aspects of this problem. Would it not be a great advantage for us to have a number of representative national committees appointed in different parts of the United Kingdom to take up this matter in order to co-ordinate the work all over the country. In Scotland I am sure we could get a very influential committee representing all the different institutions engaged in this kind of work, working in touch with each other, formulating proposals and suggesting improvements upon what is being done by the Statutory Committee. I think a great advantage would accrue to the country if this idea could be carried out. I feel certain that you would find an immense number of persons—and I number myself amongst them—who regard this as one of the most important subjects that can be dealt with at the present moment for the future welfare of our country, who would willingly come forward to assist the Pensions Minister in his work, if such national committees could be formed.

Mr. HOHLER

I desire to offer my congratulations to the Pensions Minister for the scheme he has introduced, and also for the very clear speech in which he has explained it. My criticisms will be of a character which, I think, will meet with the approval of the Pensions Minister, before the Warrant takes final shape. In regard to this Warrant I am bound to say, when we think of what has happened in past wars, and what we are now doing for our sailors and soldiers, it is as light compared with the dark ages. My first difficulty arises on Article 1 of the Warrant, and no doubt the same point arises with regard to sailors, seamen, and marines. I think that a non-commissioned officer in the Army and a warrant officer in the Navy should be entitled to his service pension, because these men form an invaluable part of our great organisations, although they form a rather small num- ber, and I can see no good reason why a man, either in the Navy or in the Army, who has risen to the rank of warrant officer or a non-commissioned officer, involving long service and good conduct, should not, if injured, in addition to any pension he may receive, also get his service pension intact and wholly additional. The Warrant gives him the minimum scale of pension set out in the Schedule, plus his service pension, if it is more favourable to him than the rank scale of pension set up in the Schedule. What I contend is, that he ought to have the full rank scale of his rank, and, in addition, his service pension. That is the first criticism I make in regard to the Warrant. No doubt when we come to deal with the officers of His Majesty's Navy and Army it is clear consideration will be given to the respective ranks those officers hold, and in which they were injured. I contend that these warrant and non-commissioned officers should be in precisely the same position, and I trust that point will have the favourable consideration of the Pensions Department.

The next point I wish to raise is in regard to the limitation of seven years. That limitation applies both in regard to death occurring from injury received at the War, or disease contracted or aggravated at the War, within seven years of it so being contracted or its having been so incurred. It is equally true that if a man who has recovered from a wound re-enters, say, the occupation in which he had been before the War, and within seven years he breaks down owing to the strain acting upon the wound, he is entitled to a pension. I submit that that limitation in both cases is purely arbitrary. Nobody can suggest that with certainty medical skill will be able to tell you whether or not in fact the wound or disease contracted in the War may not, after any length of time, produce the illness of which the man subsequently suffers, or have produced that resulting from that incident. I ask that, with regard to this Warrant, in both respects the seven years shall be struck out. It seems to me to be a lamentable thing that if you are satisfied, as many people are and have been absolutely satisfied in the past, that it is perfectly clear that a man had lingered on between life and death for that period of time distinctly suffering from that injury received in the War, or that disease contracted there, and if he just lives over seven years, his widow and children should get no pension. That cannot be right. There is no ground for this arbitrary distinction, more particularly as scientific-knowledge in medicine and surgery cannot quite clearly solve this question as to whether or not that which subsequently happened was due to the War, to the injury or disease contracted there, or to subsequent work. When we think that this is the first time in our history that we have ever called for a great civilian army in the way we have done, that we have had a magnificent response from volunteers, and ultimately the Military Service Act, I suggest that there is no ground for this reservation that has been made, and that a pension should be payable no matter at what time death occurs or at what time the injury sustained in the War results in the disability.

One point to which I desire particularly to refer is Article 21. This goes someway towards meeting a point that has been a very obvious one. It has been raised constantly in Debate in this House, and the complaint has been and is that many a young fellow has been killed at this War leaving a widowed mother, and because she cannot prove any pre-war dependence on this son she is not entitled to any support at all, or to any pension. I contend that that has proved entirely wrong, and I go much further than my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott), who spoke on this point. Why is it that you are going to give a small pension in the case of a young fellow who is apprenticed to a trade, and why is it you are going to give a small pension in the case of a young fellow who has been sent to some public university? Why is the poor person, the widow or the parent, who could afford neither the one thing nor the other, why is he or she, as the case may be, to be put into a worse position than the man who could afford to apprentice his son, or send him to a university? I have cases within my knowledge. I have an actual case present to my mind now, that of a young fellow who was killed, who had joined the Army at the age of eighteen, and who left a widowed mother who could not prove any pre-war dependence. What pre-war dependence could she prove when he was in enjoyment of the vast riches of a shilling a day? He could not afford to give her anything. What is the result? He has been killed at the War, and she will not get a halfpenny. Why not? It is the invariable experience that these young fellows, the sons of widows, do in after life as soon as they can earn money, contribute to their parents and assist to keep them out of the workhouse. Indeed, it is an obligation put upon them by law. I do submit that none of these young fellows who, as errand boys, may be earning a few shillings a week, and possibly assisting their mothers with a trifle, should be deprived of the right of pension, and that Clause 21 should go much further than it does at present. I cannot for myself see upon what ground you introduce into this Clause the words …may be granted a pension within the limit of pre-war dependence, or why this is limited to a young lad who was an apprentice or one who was at college. I cannot see any ground for that limitation. You inflict a grievous and great hardship on the poorer classes of the community, and we ought to be as anxious to protect them as those who can afford this higher education for any trade or in the university.

There is one other point with which I particularly want to deal. It has always produced in my mind a great sense of injustice. I refer to the soldier or sailor who, in fact, has become insane at the War. It may be a temporary insanity. We hope it is, but we know that in many cases it will be a permanent one. What is the result? That man is sent either to the infirmary or the asylum; probably to the asylum—almost certainly after a few days at the infirmary—and it is common knowlegde in this House that the minimum charge for a county asylum is 14s. a week. What happens? That man is sent to the asylum, and the guardians thereupon claim, under the Acts of Parliament existing, the right to deduct from that pension this 14s. It leaves the woman and children little or nothing. They have to depend entirely upon what the guardians may be willing to give them. I ask the Pensions Minister to consider and to see whether he cannot introduce a Clause to this effect in his Warrant: "Provided always that in the case of a man who is confined in a lunatic asylum the wife and children shall receive at least the allowance out of the pension which they would receive if the woman were a widow and the children were fatherless." You there secure justice to them, and let the local authorities take the rest. That is quite enough for them. They have no right to complain. This man, with others, has contributed to-making everything of value in this country. Without our soldiers and sailors, where are we? We are hopeless. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do this now, for he has the opportunity to deal with the point in the way I suggest. We should make a fair provision for the woman, because she-would secure what she and the children, would get if the father were dead. That is not much to ask, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to make that amendment in this Warrant.

The next point I wish to raise is in regard to the children of disabled men born nine months after their disability. I quite agree that I am not in favour of children born of a marriage which was entered into after the man had received his injury receiving a grant from the State. I am sorry to say there are cases, and I have known a case of it myself, where the man was, I think, entitled to-an Indian Civil Service pension and his wife was entitled to a pension. He married his nurse on his deathbed, and she got the pension. Of course, I do not like that sort of thing. I can quite well see that if one asks for a pension for children of men married after they have sustained their injury or been invalided from the front you may encourage frauds of that kind. I suggest, as we are not giving the children too much, that the allowance should be granted in respect of all children of men who are married before they sustained the injury or incurred the disease at the War, where they are totally disabled from earning a livelihood. I have particularly in mind cases of men who became blind, and what can those men or the bulk of them really hope as to earning a living in after life? Surely it is in the interests of the State that the children of such men should be put in the position in which they would have been if the man in our service had not suffered as he did. I appeal also in the case of men who have lost both legs or otherwise come under the first degree of disablement. I agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that in the First Schedule there are matters that call for revision. I looked at the Schedule quite independently of what he said, and before I came down here, and it at once occurred to me that the loss of both feet ought not to come under Degree 2 but under Degree 1, and that total deafness ought to entitle a man to at least as much as total loss of speech. I suggest that these matters require review and reconsideration. There is another matter with reference to sailors to which I wish to call attention, and I think it is probably an oversight. With regard to Page 14, Clause 1, they are substantially the same as those of the soldier, and I accept that as being probably no doubt correct. In the second paragraph of Article 1, Sub-section (l), there is this provision: Men in possession of good conduct badges or medal shall receive the same addition to their pension in respect thereof as under existing Regulations. That means that for every good conduct badge a man has when he is discharged for a pension he receives one penny per day. Under the Regulations also he gets that if his character during the service has been very good. I ask that that may be added to these men, and that they should be entitled to the additional sum of a penny per day. I cannot help thinking it has been overlooked, because I find immediately below the following: Chief petty officers, petty officers, and leading rates of the Royal Navy shall also receive the same additions in respect of petty time as under existing Regulations. That addition is in view of those men having sewed with good conduct. Therefore I ask in regard to the seamen and sailors that the same measures may be extended to them. I feel myself that this Warrant clearly represents a magnificent advance. I agree with those who think that under the strange facts which will arise it is very possible and probable that from time to time amendment may be required, because I do not believe that anybody can foresee the curious cases that will come to light. There is one other matter which I wish to mention. There are men who under military law were shot for sleeping at their posts and for other, no doubt, serious military offences. The War Office in treating those cases simply communicate, and very kindly, to the widow the fact that her husband has been killed. Could the matter not be left there and might not the Minister of Pensions take some power under the Warrant to grant to those unfortunate women and their children a small pension or some pension. It is a small matter and could not amount to much, and would be a great relief to those women who are still under the belief that their husbands have fallen gallantly fighting at the front. Would it not be better that they should not be undeceived? It may be that some friends may come and tell them the truth, and that, of course, we cannot help. I would ask the Minister to consider whether he could not introduce a Clause into the Warrant which would enable him to maintain that silence for ever and grant some pension to those women who were under the impression I have referred to.

Sir G. TOULMIN

The new Royal Warrant contains many very admirable provisions. As the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions generously acknowledged it is the work of many hands, as well as of his own, and some of them old hands who have been at this work for a long while and who were very conscious, quite as much as we who have made many complaints, of the defects of the old Warrant. The new Warrant includes many great improvements which have been very long demanded, and, so far as I have been able to assess its value, I think the devil's advocate will find much greater difficulty in discovering the loopholes which he has found, and through which he thrusts so many unfortunate individuals. We wonder how it will be administered by the right hon. Gentleman. I must say that I have considerable confidence both in the right hon. Gentleman and his team and that they are quite in accord with the general feeling of the House and the country. We are glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman is appointed sole administrator and interpreter, I think that gives us a very great control over him, because he cannot come and tell us that this or that person interprets a Clause in a particular way. I hope that he will endeavour to concentrate the administration, He knows that one roof is our ideal, That is not available at present everyone must admit; but we shall be glad to know, when occasion offers, how far he has been able to develop his organisation, Pensions for disabled soldiers are, of course, still dealt with at Chelsea, and pensions for the widows and dependants of sailors and soldiers at Grosvenor Road, and widows' pensions still proceed from Baker Street and naval pensions from Great George Street. Those are still separated, and there must be defects arising from the spreading of the administration. I rather wonder whether he, as sole administrator, has really secured real command over the voluntary committees or partly voluntary committees and the permanent officials.

The word "may" is particularly prominent in this matter. Throughout the whole of the old Warrant language was used making it quite plain that the soldier or sailor had no legal right to his pension, and could not demand an allowance in any sense as a right. Is the new Royal Warrant to be interpreted in the same way? Does it give a really legal right to those things for which he has the right to apply? It seems as if it were simply a right to apply. There is too much grace and favour in the matter at the present time. I submit that these pensions and allowances, which have been so gallantly earned, ought not to be issued at anybody's discretion, provided there is proof of service. If that service has not been rendered, of course the case is quite different. In regard to administration, we have to protect ourselves through the Warrant to the local committees to find out how the Warrant will affect individuals. These local committees are still subject to the dictum of the Statutory Committee. I do not wish to depreciate the work of the Statutory Committee too much, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not hand over too much of his discretion and his power, but will bring them entirely into line. These local committees, the Statutory Committee, and the voluntary committees through which he is working are, to a certain extent, feudatory states and not part of his dominions. We want him to bring them entirely under his control.

9.0 P.M.

I should like to ask which is the governing word of the Warrant, is it "disabled" or "discharged"? For instance, Class W men are still hanging betwixt "disabled" and "discharged." In reference to that, the relations of the War Office are rather important. Men not discharged have been in poverty in Class W. Although possibly only temporarily disabled by illness, they have not had any pension of any kind. A man is sometimes discharged from the service and left for weeks without money and without an allowance. I know that every effort is being made to secure improvement, but I wish to enforce the absolute necessity of there being no hiatus whatever. A large number of the cases we have had show that there has been imperfect connection between the War Office and the pension authority. To insist upon these points almost looks like expressing want of confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, but I do wish to impress upon him the necessity for drawing the administration closer together. There ought to be no cessation at all and no interval whatever between the pay and the allowance when the man is discharged. Cessation of pay should mean the beginning of a pension. If a man is entitled to a pension or other allowance pending a pension, there should not be the cessation of a day's pay. I do not like the confinement of certain allowances to two weeks. With regard to Class W men, if a man is able to serve in the ranks, he should serve. He should be either under the Army or passed under the care of the right hon. Gentleman. If he is not able to serve in the Army, then let him be discharged. If you want to employ him in civil work, let him be part of an organisation which will see that he does not lack that work and that he is not left destitute. In regard to the schemes for training disabled soldiers, so far as I can gather—I should welcome as much information as can be given to us—progress is being made entirely in the right direction, inasmuch as comprehensive schemes for large areas are being devised. I hear, for instance, of schemes at Birmingham and Leeds. Lancashire is drawing together. They had the advantage of a visit from the right hon. Gentleman himself a week or two ago. There is also a scheme for the Eastern Counties. All these things are steps in the right direction. I would endorse the plea made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) for a complete organisation, covering the whole country and dealing with all classes of cases. We want that as soon and as comprehensively as we can get it. We have been speaking about these things certainly since last July, and expecting to have something brought before us which will cover the whole country. It appears that the matter is left rather too much to local schemes and to Red Cross societies, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, without depreciating in any way the splendid work which the Red Cross is doing.

Another point to which I should like to refer is that it appears that men are slipping out of the proposed training because it is not now there for them. They will sink into the casual labourer class. They are men who might be trained if they are taken in hand immediately they leave hospital. If they are left for a short time they slip into a lower class, and probably will never be in a position to be trained again. In regard to the voluntary service scheme of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, which we are all advocating and endeavouring to popularise throughout the country, is there not a danger that it will take these men before the right hon. Gentleman has the whole of his scheme perfected? I should like to know whether he contemplates taking upon himself the responsibility for controlling the whole of these schemes? I cannot imagine that this House will ever rest satisfied until it has, through him, complete control of the whole of these Departments. I should like to refer to one or two details of the scheme. Part I., paragraph (4), contains a reference to public funds. I should like to know what is designated by the words "public funds." If relief is given by an institution to the child of a man in respect of whom a pension or other allowance is issued, and a deduction is made from the amount of the award in consequence, is the amount of the deduction, or any part of it, to be paid to the institution as a contribution towards the cost of that relief? I suppose and hope it must be that the intention is that the money shall go to the institution. I know institutions which are taking in as many of the children of soldiers' widows as they can, in the expectation that these Grants will come to them, and that the relief which they have given to the area for which the charity is designed will not be lessened from the fact that they are also taking in soldiers' children. Then, with regard to deducting half of the benefit if the sanatorium treatment is refused, I quite agree that it is necessary to have some hold over a man who has a natural shrinking to go back to what he looks upon as a barracks. He does not know what he is going to. He does not know the splendid training he may get and the immense advantage it may be. The discipline he looks forward to is possibly irksome although most beneficial. But I can conceive other cases in which it might be a great hardship to him if he himself did not think he was a suitable case, and if he were sustained, say, by his own doctor. I hope, whether you give an appeal or not, such as I have suggested, at all events the man would be heard in some way or other before he has this degradation inflicted upon him.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the provision for the totally disabled, and I rather gathered that there was an admirable institution foreshadowed where consumptives for whom there was no hope were to be treated. I do not know anything more sad, and I do not know anything more necessary to carry out. I am sure the profoundest sympathy and desire to help will be given towards such an institution; but, after all, that is the wrong end. The consumptive is curable if you take him at the beginning, and I hope not a single consumptive case will be simply thrust out of the Army and treated under the gratuity clause. The consumptive has a double claim. He is a national danger if he is to be sent amidst the general population. He has been taken into the Army, and I think the Minister would do well if he took the occasion of having his hand upon this man to treat him as we should like the whole of the consumptives of the country to he treated. I have had an opportunity of inquiring from one or two gentlemen who have had a very large experience in this matter, and they feel that the present arrangement has really failed to deal adequately with the consumptive soldier. Really it ought to be attacked in the very earliest stage, and I should like to know if what I have been told is correct, that the Army authorities will not acknowledge that a soldier may break down with phthisis as the result of Army service. They rather insist that the disease must have been contracted before the man entered the Service, and there is the very greatest difficulty in getting any case accepted as having been produced through service.

Then, of course, we know that many of these cases have had a disability allowance which is entirely unjust. A consumptive man either can work or he cannot, and to say he suffers to the extent of a quarter is in many cases the merest mockery. Very few cases have received a really good chance of recovery. Many of them have had no sanatorium treatment at all. It is said it has been offered, but they have not had it, and my own feeling is that we should go even so far as to retain a certain amount of control, on them for their own benefit, in order that they may receive such treatment. Many of them have only been in a sanatorium for two or three months, and their cure has not been completed. I have a number of Lancashire cases here, commencing, say, with a cold in Blackpool at the end of February, then moved to Tonbridge, and got worse. In September it was a well-developed case, and in November the man was still waiting for a vacancy, and the case was practically hopeless for a cure. There are various other cases. The sad fact is that many of them are only begun to be resolutely taken hold of when the men are doomed. The Insurance Commissioners claim to have provided accommodation immediately in every instance. I do not wish to attack the Insurance Commissioners at all. I dare say they would say they have provided accommodation for those cases which have been brought to their notice, but in any case the results very often have only been a lamentable failure. The time which has been given to them in sanatoria is too little. Over and over again the waiting period, owing to insufficiency of accommodation, has been so long that the chance of cure has either been greatly jeopardised or it has gone altogether. In regard to the case of the tuberculous soldier, I really think the right hon. Gentleman should consider the possibility of treatment at the other end and not the hopeless cases. I suggest that the man might be retained under military discipline until cured or discharged or passed on to the new hospital which the right hon. Gentleman is preparing for the incurable. He should have a full pension and his family should be looked after in the meantime. I cannot think this can be done unless the Pensions Ministry directly establishes its own sanatoria and farm colonies. There need be no expensive buildings. As a matter of fact, the outdoor treatment is such that a mere shelter with a few administrative buildings is specially suitable, and this is the more so with soldiers, as they have been living a very open-air life. It has been discovered that when they have had this outdoor treatment and through some special circumstances they have had to be taken indoor, although in very well ventilated hospitals, they have at once begun to lose weight. I have emphasised that special point because I believe these men have a double claim. I am looking forward to a very great improvement in the near future, and I think I can assure both the Pensions Minister and his assistants that the House will give them every assistance it can in carrying out a comprehensive scheme.

Mr. PENNEFATHER

Like other hon. Members who have spoken I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having produced a Royal Warrant which is not only a great improvement, but which is obviously conceived in a spirit of sincere sympathy. But for all that there are weak spots, and I think the right hon. Gentleman invited us to point them out. One of the weak features has just been referred to by the hon. Member (Sir G. Toulmin) when he pointed out that the word "may" was used in many cases instead of the word "shall." That is not so small a point as it seems. I will give an example of what I mean. The third paragraph of the Preamble provides that

"this Our Warrant, may, if more beneficial to them, be applied with retrospective effect."

If that is so, why should it not read, if it is more beneficial to the soldier, that this Our Warrant "shall" be applied? In the First Schedule the pensions that are set out are pensions that "may" be granted for specific injuries. I think it would be a very important alteration, and an alteration in the right direction, if in these cases, and possibly in others, the word "shall" could be substituted for the word "may," particularly in the Schedule, because I think it ought to be clearly stated that these pensions are the "minimum" pensions and "shall" be granted. The last paragraph in the Preamble seems to be extremely ambiguous. Reference is made in that paragraph to

"other provision for the disablement of the soldier or on account of his decease."

Surely it would be possible to state quite clearly in the Warrant or in the Preamble what "other" provision is meant. Again, in that connection I would refer to Subsection (2) of Clause 25, where the following words appear:

"nothing in this Our Warrant shall be held to affect the existing Warrant or Regulations in regard to service pension—"

that is understood—

"or other grants the administration of which continues to be vested in our Army Council or in our Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital."

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will refer to the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, he will find that all the powers of the Army Council over grants and gratuities were expressly transferred to the Ministry of Pensions, and what was reserved were only service pensions, and pensions or gratuities, or grants arising solely out of money belong- ing to Greenwich, and I think one other exception. Therefore, I suggest that in all these cases it should be made perfectly clear (if necessary by means of a short Schedule), what are these other somewhat ambiguous grants and arrangements referred to. That might save a great deal of uncertainty.

I am afraid it is impossible to avoid touching to some extent, upon topics which have already been touched upon, but I must refer to the second paragraph of Part I, which says: A warrant officer or non-commissioned officer entitled to a service pension may, if more favourable to him, receive a disablement pension as in the Schedule, according to rank, in place of a disablement pension on the lowest scale and a service pension in addition. I should like to emphasise what has been said by previous speakers on this matter. I feel very strongly that the two questions of service pensions and disablement pensions ought not to be confused and mixed up. They stand on a totally different basis. The service pension has been earned by a man for his service, and not only that, but the service pension is in many cases really a form of deferred pay. In many cases I believe the men have contributed to the pension fund. The disability pension has also been earned, but in a different way. It has been earned by the man having served his country, run certain risks, and received certain wounds and disabilities in consequence. Therefore, these two matters have really so little to do with each other, that according to the Act of 1916 the service pension is specially retained by the Army Council for administration by them, and the disability pension has been transferred to the Ministry of Pensions for administration by them. I think that the service pension and the disability pension ought to be quite irrespective of each other. They ought to run concurrently, but ought not to be confused to the detriment of the soldier or the sailor. The question of public funds has been touched upon by the hon. Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin). I not only want to emphasise his question, but I want to point out that if his suggestion is not adopted, and if the money which is stopped from the parent is not paid to the institution, one of two things will happen. Either the burden is shifted from the State to the rates of the locality, assuming the institu- tion to be a rate-aided institution, or, if it is an ordinary charitable institution, the burden of the State, which ought to be shouldered by all, is put upon funds which have been charitably contributed by a limited number of people for a certain beneficent purpose. In both cases that must be a wrong thing to do. The State ought not to profit either by the contributions of the ratepayers in the locality or by the voluntary contributions of people to charity. In Sub-section (5) of Clause 6 there is a most excellent provision to the effect that if a man is disabled in the highest degree an allowance not exceeding 20s. a week may be provided where the constant attendance of a second person is necessary. That is a very great improvement on which I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and gallant Friend, but I would like to raise this point: it is possible that a man may not be disabled in the highest degree, but he may be so severely disabled that he may need the partial attendance or assistance of a second person. I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to take into his consideration whether some provision on a reduced scale cannot be made for such a case as that. I would also like to ask him what is to happen in the case of a wounded soldier who claims that he is unable to attend to himself and that the assistance of a second person is necessary. Who is to decide? Is it to be left entirely to the military medical authorities, or will the advice of the man's own doctor be taken into consideration before the matter is finally adjudicated upon?

I would like to support what has already been said about the inequity of limiting the matter to claims which arise within seven years. Why seven years? What is the magic of the figure seven Why should not exactly the same disability present itself in eight, nine, or ten years? I will put before the Committee the consideration that the soldier has fought for victory and enduring peace, which he has helped to bring to us, and that we shall reap as a nation the benefit of that for more than seven years: and why should we come down on the soldier and say, "We are going for generations to reap the benefits of what you have done, but we are going to limit your claim to a period of seven years"?

The gratuity on remarriage has been reduced from £200 to £100. There is in the notes an explanation of that which I regard as being very far from convincing. I cannot regard it as in the interests of the State from any point of view that this reduction should be made. It is not treating liberally the widows of the men who have fallen in our battles. Not only is it not right, but I believe that even from the hard point of view it is not good business, because there can be no doubt that £200 will help a widow more to get remarried and start in business than £100. An hon. Member laughs, but I may remind him that some people are very poor, and that to these people the difference between £100 and £200 is much more real than it is to the gentleman who laughed. Then we should remember that the remarriage of a widow is an absolute gain of pounds, shillings, and pence to the State, because on remarriage the pension ceases and the State, so to speak, cuts its loss by payment of the gratuity. Therefore I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider very carefully whether the gratuity should not be restored to its present sum of £200.

There is one further suggestion in reference to the gratuity. It may be in some cases very much to the woman's advantage if she could secure to herself, not the payment of, say, £200 in a lump sum, but the payment of a small annuity, or at all events payment over a period of years. The widow might have some doubts as to whether the man she was going to marry was altogether a thrifty person, and she might think it prudent to have the control in her own hands in the shape of an annuity instead of having it paid over in a lump sum, and therefore I suggest this for the hon. Gentleman's consideration. A good deal has been said to-day about Clause 21, Sub-section (2), relating to pensions and allowances to parents. I am not going over the whole ground, but I suggest it is obviously inequitable to make this payment conditional upon the parents being infirm or incapable. Surely the test is not infirmity or incapability, but necessity. The test is, do the parents need it? It is quite conceivable that the mother of a young fellow who has been killed may be quite a young woman with a number of still younger children to provide for. She may have an invalid daughter, or possibly an invalid husband, to provide for, and there are numberless cases in which the woman is in need of assistance, and it should not be brought down to that narrow class of infirm or incapable. The test should be necessity, and that alone; and I would like to support what was said by my hon. Friend who spoke from the bench opposite, and to plead that it should be extended not only to young men who are apprentices, but to all young men who have lost their lives in the War and whose parents absolutely require assistance.

The question of gratuities is mentioned in various Clauses—sometimes under the heading "Gratuities," sometimes under the heading of "Temporary Allowances," sometimes under the heading of "Terminal Gratuities." I am not sure that there is not rather a pitfall for the unwary in these terms. I would like my mind, and the minds of others, set at rest on that point. I would like to ask a definite question: Is the acceptance of a gratuity or temporary allowance a final transaction which is a bar to any future claim in case of the recurrence of a breakdown which has apparently ceased? It quite frequently happens that a disease or malady, possibly resulting from a wound, may apparently cease, and then if a gratuity is accepted and if that is an end of the matter and if this malady breaks out again that man then has apparently no claim, or there is the danger that his claim might be disallowed on the ground that he had had a gratuity or allowance which was final. If that is the case, it will be as necessary for a pensioner to be just as careful how he approaches the matter as a person insured against accidents has to be in dealing with the insurance agents who invite him to settle for a small sum in respect of some accident the full consequences of which are not yet known.

Then I come to the definitions in Part III., and I suggest that another definition ought to be added to those which are already there—that is, a definition of what is meant by "substantial." That word occurs throughout the Warrant in many places—where a disease has been "substantially aggravated," and in other connections. Then there is the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury in connection with the definition of the word "discharge." There are men—I have personal knowledge of some cases—who have been transferred in error to Class W. The result is that they have not been discharged, and they have been in Class W for months, and their discharge, and therefore their right to pension, should go back retrospectively to the date at which they were transferred in error. In regard to the Schedule, in addition to those peculiarities which have been pointed out by other hon. Members, apparently the loss of the toes, which is very frequent after frost-bite, is not regarded as being-even 20 per cent. That is a thing which very frequently happens in the trenches. I know a case in which it happened in Salonika. Then, in the Schedule there is no reference to any scale of pensions in cases of hernia, neurasthenia, functional nerve, functional paralysis, heart trouble, or to stiff joints and shortened limbs, which prevent men from carrying on their occupations and reduce their earning power. There are other points that I could touch upon, but I do not want to occupy too much of the time of the Committee.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS

The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions has certainly no reason to be dissatisfied with the discussion of the Warrant. Everyone recognises the broad lines on which it has been drafted, subject, of course, to such criticisms of detail as hon. Members may feel called upon to offer. While recognising that the Committee and the country must feel that this is an enormous burden which has to be borne, yet, at the same time, we are all anxious to shoulder that burden, and to give what is our due to those men who have done so much for their country. If I urge any considerations as to grievances about pensions, or as to the question of training of disabled soldiers, it is not from any sense that the training will diminish the value of pensions, but because I believe the training is really necessary in order that we may have the full advantage which will arise from granting pensions on a liberal scale. I only rise to enforce points that have already been made more than once during the discussion. I feel that it is a little ungracious to advance criticisms for the consideration of the Minister of Pensions, while, at the same time, we express our satisfaction, and recognise his sympathy; but I confess that, so far as the treatment of disabled men is concerned, I do not regard the right hon. Gentleman as being the best possible authority; possibly, he is just the second best, and I am afraid I can only regard him as being a sympathetic second best, but, on this matter, still only a second best. The question came before the Health Insurance Commissioners, and at that time there was a contingent undertaking on the part of the Insurance Commission to assume charge of all disabled men, subject to the Treasury finding the money, and subject to the War Office making up its mind that it could not undertake the work itself.

I am afraid that there has been a considerable amount of delay in this matter. I do not wish to express any dissatisfaction with the most brilliant work of the Director of Medical Service, who has done so much for the health of the Army and the country; still, I feel that there has been regrettable delay which has done some harm that it will be exceedingly difficult to make up. It is no fault of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions, and one realises the preoccupations of the War Office, and their anxiety as to future accommodation. Nevertheless, there has been a considerable amount of delay, and many would have been only too glad to have seen this question treated as it has been treated, not merely in France, but also in Belgium. In Belgium it has been possible for the Belgian authorities to sand the men home, and consequently they were driven into the adoption of much more systematic and co-ordinated treatment than we have been able to arrive at. The senior Member for Blackburn made an appeal to the House of Commons from his point of view, but we must, of course, admit the fact that the Minister of Pensions and the Statutory Committe is now the statutory authority for dealing with these disabled soldiers. The real point I want to make is that I do not think we can be satisfied with the partition of responsibility between the Minister of Pensions and the War Office at the present time. I cannot help thinking that in the concordat at the end of last December, to which the Pensions Minister referred, the War Office got off rather lightly from some of the responsibility which they ought to undertake. The principle is clear that the War Office should be responsible either for refitting a man to be a private, and if he can no longer be a private, then to refit him for an industrial life. The War Office was never willing to accept the second half of that responsibility, and that second half of the responsibility now rests upon the Minister of Pensions and the Statutory Committee.

In the first place, therefore, I appeal to the Minister of Pensions to exercise his responsibility and really secure co-ordination, a thing that has not really happened down to the present time. You have had all kinds of fits of organisation, admirable examples of philanthropic effort, such as the treatment of the blind, and the treatment at Roehampton and elsewhere of those who have lost their limbs. In regard to tubercular soldiers, if the Committee will allow me, I would like to make one reference to the complaint made by the hon. Member for Bury (Sir George Toulmin), who spoke of discharged soldiers suffering from tuberculosis having been delayed, and of a long list of those waiting to secure treatment, and said if they got that treatment it was inadequate treatment. When I was responsible, in connection with the Health Insurance Commissioners, I gave a good deal of personal attention to that particular point, and I can only say that there was no waiting list for tubercular soldiers, because by means of a special fund they were given priority at once, and were offered accommodation. I believe that 5,000 persons have been accommodated in sanatoria, but it was not always that the offer was accepted. A man, after long military service, and in view of the fact that the War Office would not undertake the responsibility, would sometimes decline the offer, and preferred to go home. That, of course, is the disadvantage of dealing with these men after discharge, and not before discharge. I took personal pains to look into cases brought before me while I was in charge of the national insurance. I can only say there was no case I could discover where accommodation was not offered at once, and was not ready for any tuberculous soldier who was discharged. But still the Insurance Commission has some responsibility here. Of course if the discharged soldier is an insured person he has a claim on the services of the panel doctor. There is to be set up a new Committee of the Red Cross, with representatives of the Statutory Committee and of the War Office, for dealing with neurasthenics, and the Statutory Committee, through its local disablement committees, is to be responsible for all other classes of disabled persons. But everyone must feel that we have not yet arrived at co-ordinated treatment.

I quite realise that the full responsibility has only very recently been entrusted to the Pensions Minister, but I think the problem will never be satisfactorily dealt with unless it is treated as a whole. I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman there should be some extra action on the part of the War Office. That Department has handed the matter over to him, but I cannot see how these different classes can be accommodated unless the War Office will allocate special hospitals up and down the country for the treatment of the different classes of the disabled. It will not necessarily mean the building of new hospitals. But unless something is done in the way of allocation I do not see how these different classes of disabled persons can be properly dealt with. If you once allocate hospitals you must have one hospital under the control of the War Office for this purpose, and then you can deal with the men collectively. If you have individuals belonging to different classes in different hospitals you cannot get the course of manual training which are necessary, and therefore I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to concert measures with the War Office along these lines.

A further point I wish to put is the necessity for co-ordination with the local committees. The Pensions Minister said nothing about these committees or about their work, and I do not quite gather what, in his view, are the lines they should work upon. I think that these local committees might very properly deal with some of the permanently disabled cases. They would not necessarily be numerous, but I do think the men will be very glad indeed not to be herded together in some central institution, and I should hope that the local committees would be able to provide accommodation in their respective localities, so that these disabled men might have the advantage of being near to their friends. Now that these particular disablement schemes are in the minds of the disablement committees surely it would be impossible to allow the various disablement committees to start schemes of their own. They will require grouping. I know how difficult it is to get them to work together, but unless you can do that you will not be able to allocate men to these special hospitals; you will not be able to send them where special forms of disablement can be dealt with, and it would be quite impossible to give them the requisite course of manual training. I should like to know what is happening in regard to the training centres which the War Office have refused to allow in connection with hospitals. I know that at Cardiff the War Office did refuse to allow the excellent facilities which existed there for training to be used, and that does not appear to be quite in harmony with the spirit of con- cordat which it is suggested has arisen between the Pensions Minister and the War Office.

I have only two other points to deal with. I hope when the Pensions Minister has brought about co-ordination he will be able to keep a national register of all the disabled men, with records of the way in which they have been trained. We might then get an employment bureau—a central agency—which would be of advantage to these men. Are we going to take advantage of the experience of the French in this matter? The French have an illustrated pamphlet which is given to the men who are discharged. Everyone realises the value of the training. It will be extremely difficult to recover touch with the men who have already gone from the hospital, and who are unknown in the areas of the various disablement committees up and down the country. I do not know how they are to be dealt with, how we are to keep in touch with them. At all events something should be done to cover this point in the future, and it seems to the that some kind of pamphlet on the lines of the French illustrated pamphlet might be of real use if put in the hands of men whom we should like to train.

In reference to the training of the disabled men, it must be remembered that they cannot possibly compete in the future, although they may be able to do so at the present moment, in the unskilled labour market. Obviously unskilled labour depends on physical strength, and these men will always be at a disadvantage in comparison with unskilled labour. But if by the training given them we can bring them into the ranks of skilled labour and give them some assurance for the future that they will be able to earn wages—as undoubtedly they possibly can do—of from 50s. to 60s. a week, we shall feel that we have really done something to secure their future. I hope my right hon. Friend will not regard me as being unduly critical. I am making an attempt to suggest lines on which further organisation can be completed. If the War Office cannot see its way to take this work on then I hope, under the guidance of my right hon. Friend, a real structure can be built up which will enable us to go a long way to solve this difficult problem.

Sir J. WALTON

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister on having been able to-day to announce to the House of Commons a scale of pensions on lines immensely more generous than any arrangement which has preceded it. Personally unable to take part in the fight in which our country is engaged, I feel that the young men who have gone out to preserve the very existence of the British Empire deserve from me that they should have, if they are fortunate enough to come home again, at least those comforts in life that they were able in their prime vigour to secure for themselves before the outbreak of war. To my mind the great advantage of the scheme now proposed is the abolition of the flat rate. It did seem to me unfair that the thousands of men from my district in Yorkshire—coal miners who earned from £3 to £5 a week—should only receive the same maximum pension of 25s. a week as was given to agricultural labourers who in many parts of the country were not earning before the War that amount in weekly wage. Therefore I welcome the announcement to-day that if a man earned up to 50s. a week before the War he will receive that amount in pension if totally disabled, and that from 50s. to 100s. he will at any rate receive one-half of the amount, making a possible total of £3 15s. per week as a maximum, including allowances and grants for children. That is an enormous step in advance. It is a financial proposal that we are justified in making. Indeed, I should feel that my duty and responsibility towards the brave lads who are fighting our battles at the front to-day would be ill-discharged by any less generous proposal.

I have some doubt as to the arrangement in regard to the gratuities that are introduced into these proposals. I am afraid that in many cases, if we were to pay down a lump sum, it would soon be spent, and I think that to have that lump sum distributed over a period would be a more advantageous arrangement. The questions of treatment and training, especially the latter, are very important. They cannot be arranged in a day; but when I know the sympathetic spirit in which the Pensions Minister and my hon. and gallant Friend in front of me (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) are devoting themselves heart and soul to this great problem, I believe that they will succeed in devising measures that will secure, not only treatment and restore the maimed to the greatest possible physical vigour again, but that they will also secure and devise means of training that will fit them to take part again in the industrial life of the country to the greatest possible extent, I believe that the majority of men coming home disabled do not wish to be hangers about the street corners and do no work. I believe that they would be better, physically and mentally, by having some occupation, and that they themselves will desire not to be drones in the community, but to work again to the utmost of their strength, and, therefore, I feel to-night that we have begun a new era in regard to our fighting forces, and towards preserving the physical vigour of our men. The whole Debate from beginning to end has been, in my judgment, of a very high order, and has shown that we are all of one heart and one mind in this matter, and determined to do our duty by our soldiers and sailors.

10.0 P.M.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I think it will be convenient if I endeavour now to answer some of the many questions that have been put to me during the course of the Debate. I should like to say, first of all, that my right hon. Friend and myself are very much gratified by the exceedingly kind and flattering reception which has generally been accorded to the terms of the new Warrant, not only in this House, but I should like to say in the Press also. I know my right hon. Friend and those who have advised him have worked exceedingly hard, with a view to producing before the country an instrument which I might describe as the Pensioners' Charter, so that, instead of all the difficulty in ascertaining the exact conditions which prevail at the present day, we might have a simple document that any man can appeal to, and in which he can, as far as possible, see what he is entitled to. Of course, when we come to deal with so complex a question as this, we are bound to have a great deal of criticism indeed, and may I say that my right hon. Friend and myself welcome that criticism. We cannot expect to please everybody. There must be points concerning which suggestions can be made for our future guidance, and we recognise that the criticisms which have been made have been made entirely in a sympathetic spirit, and we are endeavouring to meet the points so far as we can.

I was asked by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), "To whom does this new Warrant apply?" I think the question is very easily answered. As regards the Army, it applies to all non-commissioned officers and men in British units. It does not mean merely English-born or British-born subjects, in the sense of people born within these Isles. For example, a Canadian serving in an English or a Scottish or Irish regiment would come under the terms of the Warrant, but it applies to what I would call British units. It does not apply to Dominion forces or Colonial forces, nor does it apply to coloured troops enlisted in the British Army. As regards Colonial forces, they have their own Warrants; as regards the coloured troops enlisted in the British Army, that is a question we shall have to deal with; and as regards officers, the Warrants which now apply to them are very old and obsolete, and we shall have to deal with them.

Colonel YATE

When do you propose to deal with them?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I can, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we have a meeting this week to consider the draft of a new Warrant. This Warrant only applies to men who have been, disabled, and their widows and dependants, in the present War; but we recognise that there is, or may be, hardship in the case of those disabled in previous wars and who are not nearly so well paid as men disabled in this War will be under this Warrant. We have got that under consideration, too, although I cannot make any definite promise in regard to the steps which we may take.

Mr. BILLING

May I ask whether it is a full-blooded or a half-blooded colour ban? Is a Hottentot entitled to anything, for instance?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

The term that used to be used was "European." We do not use "European" now, because we can hardly describe a Canadian who has served in a British regiment as a European; but, roughly speaking, all white soldiers who serve in British regiments will come under the Warrant, and we shall deal with coloured races, if I may use a rather objectionable expression, in another way.

Mr. BILLING

Would a South African returning to this country with a streak of black blood in him be entitled to come under the Warrant?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I cannot go into such niceties as that. As regards the Navy, I may say that the Order in Council applies to all seamen and marines entered in the Royal Navy or Marines or any of its Reserves. It does not apply at the present moment to any body else. The next question that I was asked was a question arising out of the Preamble: The pension of a soldier who has served before the date of this our Warrant may be assessed under the terms of our previous Warrants regulating disablement pensions for soldiers, if more favourable to the soldier than this our Warrant,.... I am asked what that means. It means that we do not take away from any soldier the better pension which he could obtain under any previous Warrant. There are very few cases where it will arise, but I can mention one. Under the Warrant, I think, of 1914 the man who did fourteen years' service was entitled, if he were disabled, to a small pension, even though it was clear that his disablement was not either caused or aggravated by service. Under this Warrant of ours that man would only get a gratuity. I am coming to that gratuity in a moment. In his case, therefore, it might be more favourable to the man to come under the 1914 Warrant. There may be other cases where it is more favourable. In all these cases we do not take away a man's right and we do not make a man's position in any way worse than it was.

I come to perhaps the most controversial point in the new Warrant; a point which was insisted upon so much by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), who I am sorry has been unable to be present for the rest of the Debate owing to ill-health. That is the point that a man whose disability has neither been caused nor aggravated by service should only get a gratuity. The hon. Member takes the stand that if a man is passed as fit for the Army he is therefore fit for a pension, and has a right to it. Some other hon. Members take the same view. Let us look at the position. These were men who no doubt through the mistakes of the Army doctors, and very often at times of great rush, were admitted into the Army. They ought not to have been admitted. But they were. At the present time they get nothing at all. About 60,000 cases of this sort have been rejected at Chelsea—and Chelsea is not to blame because under the present Warrant they cannot give them anything unless their disability was caused or aggravated by service. We propose to do something for them We propose to give them a gratuity. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh says they ought to have a pension. That is not the view of a great many people who have considered this matter. I have here an extract from a newspaper which more often represents the views of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh than it does my views. I refer to the "Daily News and Leader," which, in its issue of 1st March, says: The most striking change, because it was the most urgently needed, is the decision to recognise the claim of the man passed by the recruiting and medical board as fit and then discharged from the Army as unfit. Men in that category number some 70,000, and hitherto have been granted no pension at all on the ground that their service in the Army has nothing to do with their ill-health. Such cases are more properly met by the payment of a lump sum than by a permanent pension to which now a man can establish no claim. This course has been followed in the Warrant. The lump sum, namely, £100, is adequate. That, at all events, is the view of the "Daily News and Leader." Let me go a little further. I assure the House we do not want to deal in any way hardly with these men. I want, however, to put it to the House—Ought these men to have permanent pensions? In many cases they did no service at all. I have got here a list of sixty soldiers who were invalided from one battalion—the 20th Royal Welsh Fusiliers. They were iuvalided for longstanding ailments—that is to say, ailments that they had long before they enlisted—or they were over age. They had done no military training. Lot me just repeat the particulars, briefly, of seven or eight cases. "Unable to march or attend parade." "Attended no parade." "No military training." "Absolutely unable to march or to attend any parade." "Had no military training." "No military training." "Unable to attend parade." and so on.

Mr. BILLING

made an observation inaudible in the Reporters Gallery.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I really cannot answer all these questions which have nothing whatever to do with the Pensions Minister. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred is one for the War Office. My point is this: does the House really say that where a man was ill when he was passed in and did no military training at all that he should have a pension for the rest of his life?

Mr. REES

Can you tell the House what the ailments were?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Yes. Here is one, antheroma, which means senile decay.

Sir J. WALTON

Was it the doctor who passed these men who had senile decay?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

One man had rheumatism with heart disease of long-standing. Several had antheroma or senile decay. I could give you other examples. I had the honour to command a Reserve battalion myself. During the period I was in active command I considered it my duty to discharge a large number of this class of men who had been passed into my battalion.

Sir J. WALTON

Passed in?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Well, not by me. My great anxiety was to get rid of them. I remember one particular case of a man who was discharged with 126 days' service, quite a reasonable lengthy period, but 125 of those 126 days' service were spent in hospital. I appeal to hon. Members: is it seriously contended that a man who has never done a days' service, in circumstances similar to those I have stated, should have a pension for the rest of his life? At present such men get nothing. We do propose to compensate for the errors of the doctors by giving them a gratuity. These gratuities will follow the length of their service, and other conditions. I am perfectly certain that in many cases we ought not to give them anything. At the same time we have recognised the principle, and we have to do it, and I can assure the House that where there is any hard ease we will deal with it in a most sympathetic spirit. We shall go to the highest limits wherever there are exceptional circumstances which justify us in doing so. In fact, perhaps I may be allowed to say this: not only in this matter but in the general administration of the new Warrant—as has already been said a great deal will depend upon the Pensions Minister—it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly my intention to administer it in the most sympathetic spirit; to try and see that every disabled soldier has at least justice. If there is to be any error in this matter we shall always aim at seeing that it is on the side of generosity, and giving the man the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. MILLAR

Will you raise the limit in any very hard case?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I cannot do that because the Warrant makes that the limit.

Mr. MILLAR

But you do not take power to raise the limit to meet such cases.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I can only say I will consider it, but I can give no promise. Perhaps I may bring the House back to the fact that we are only dealing here with those cases where there has been neither causation nor aggravation by military service. The hard cases will generally be where there has been aggravation.

Mr. MILLAR

The case to which I referred, and which has been referred to several times, is the case of a man taken away from his business or profession, and who has suffered very substantial loss, and never ought to have been taken at all.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Really we have all been taken away from our business. The great majority, whether fit or unfit, whether disabled or not, have been taken away from their business. This is a Warrant for conferring pensions for disablement—not for dislocation of business. That, I think, is the answer, but I can assure my hon. Friend we shall deal with all cases in a most sympathetic manner.

Mr. BILLING

Will the same medical board judge of disablement?

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. and gallant Member must be allowed to answer the points already raised before fresh points are raised.

Mr. BILLING

Some of us have not had the opportunity of raising points at all.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

The next point I want to answer if I can is the question raised by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler), the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and several other hon. Members about a man holding both a service pension and a disablement pension. I should like to point out to the Committee that this is the first Warrant in which it is possible for a man to have both, and I think we are entitled to that amount of credit. The question was asked, Why is it that a non-commissioned officer does not get both a service pension according to his rank and a disablement pension according to his rank? What we propose is this. A noncommissioned officer may get his service pension, according to his rank and also a disablement pension at the lowest rate—that is to say, at the rate of a private; or he can get a disablement pension according to his rank as a non-commissioned officer. I think that is perfectly fair, and I cannot conceive why we should count the rank twice over. He gets his service pension in respect of his long service. He gets his disablement pension in resepect of his disability, and the rank is counted either in the one or in the other. I cannot see any injustice in saying that he is not to have the rank counted twice over.

Then I come to another matter, which perhaps has aroused a certain amount of controversy, and which, I think, is based on misunderstanding. It has been pointed out that in the case of the widow it is laid down that she does not get her pension as a right, but more or less as a privilege, and it has been asked why should that be the case, and why should not the widow have her pension as a right practically in the same way as the man has. I want to make it clear to the Committee that there is nothing new in this. In every Warrant with which I am acquainted that appears, and the theory is this: a disabled man has fought for his country and suffered for his country, and it is quite right he should have some pecuniary compensation, so far as he can have pecuniary compensation for what he has done and suffered. In the case of the widow and dependant, it is not a right but a matter of grace, and this House has always agreed to that principle. In 1915, when the Statutory Committee was set up, the matter was debated in this House. On the Statutory Committee was placed the duty of deciding in what cases a widow should not get a pension or should forfeit it. No objection was taken to it on that account. It is not a case that arises very often. I can give the figures. Since the Statutory Committee has been set up, to and including 28th February, only thirteen widows' pensions have been forfeited, two have been administered under trust, six have been restored, and fifteen have been suspended. We do think that it is a good thing to retain this right, and we think the matter should be dealt with in that way instead of dealing with such cases in a way which might otherwise be necessary in such cases. There was the case of a sailor who was drowned in the North Sea, and very shortly before he was drowned he received information—in fact, he received a confession—that his wife had been unfaithful, and he took steps at once to stop the allotment and separation allowance she was enjoying. He also had intended to take proceedings for divorce, but immediately afterwards he was drowned. Surely it is not contended in that case that the widow should have a right to a pension, and under this Warrant she will not get a pension and the case will not arise. I think the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) raised the point whether even in the case of the disabled man he had his pension as a right. It is rather difficult for me to answer that question, but I should say that practically he has it as a right, and the only reason why we say "may" and not "shall" is that we are not dealing with a Bill or anything that may become an Act of Parliament, but we are dealing with a Royal Warrant. We are taking an exceptional course in discussing at all the draft of a Royal Warrant, and in a Royal Warrant the word "shall" is never used. I am given to understand by those who advise me and my right hon. Friend that the word "may" in nearly all these cases means "shall," and in practice a man has an indefeasible right to a pension under this Warrant.

Some questions were raised about the Schedule as to whether the man who had lost a leg and an eye should be in the top category while a blind man was not. Every kind of suggestion was made by the different Members who spoke. I do not intend to embark on any discussion of the Schedule, and am afraid that as many Members as there are here as many different opinions would there be about that Schedule. All I can say is that my right hon. Friend and myself did not settle the Schedule, nor did we rely in this on our statutory advisers. We called in the senior medical officers of the Army and Navy and took their advice, and by their advice we feel we are bound to go. If I were to give any promises with regard to the Schedule, I am sure we should get into great trouble, and therefore I must ask hon. Members to believe that we have endeavoured in the Schedule to follow the best medical advice we could get. Now I come to a rather disputed Article, and that is Article 21. Article 21 does a thing which, at all events, has not been done before. For the first time in a Warrant we recognise the principle that where parents have made sacrifices, where they have saved up, and squeezed themselves in order to give an extra good education to their sons, where they have very often stinted themselves to send their sons to a higher grade school or college, or to apprentice them or something of that sort, in those cases something must be done for the parent. The general criticism of this Article has been that we do not go far enough. Possibly we do not. I am not going to express any opinion, but I think we may claim that we have recognised this principle, and that, at all events, in all cases where parents have made these sacrifices in order that their sons may rise to a higher position in life than otherwise they could, and where the son has subsequently been killed in the course of this terrible War the parent will get some compensation in cases where they are unable to earn their own livelihood.

A question has been asked as to whether it was intended that they would only get that assistance if they were incapable of earning their livelihood at the time when the unfortunate soldier was killed. I think I have already answered that, but I will repeat my answer to the House. That is not the intention. The intention is that if at any time, it may be years after, the parents are in this condition that they cannot support themselves, in that case the pension shall be paid to them; and I am quite prepared to give this guarantee—that if, after further consideration, it appears that the words in the Warrant do not adequately carry that out, if there is any obscurity in the words of the Warrant, we will amend the words to make that intention perfectly clear. I now come to another point—what I may call the seven-year limit. We have been pressed pretty hard by various speakers to take out that limit because it has been suggested that in many cases a man might die of disablement caused by military service, the effects of which did not appear in a serious form till after seven years. All I can say about that is that we are quite prepared to consider it. After all, there is no immediate hurry about it; it will not arise for seven years from now. We are quite willing to take further advice on the matter and possibly to extend the time. Then I come to the point of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler). He was greatly concerned about lunatics. He was most anxious that the families of lunatics, men who had been made lunatics in the War, should be looked after. I think my hon. Friend has overlooked the provisions of Article 6, where it is laid down clearly where a man is in a sanatorium or an asylum an allowance may be made to the family. The matter is, I believe, fully covered by the provisions of that Article.

The only other point I need deal with of what I may call the smaller points is the question that has been asked by several Members, of whom, I think, the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Penne-father) was one, about the case of men transferred to what is called Class W Reserve. I am sorry to say that the Pensions Ministry has got most undeservedly into very serious trouble over Class W. We have had letters written in the newspapers holding us up to all kinds of odium because we have done nothing for men in Class W; and time and time again it is thrown in our teeth that these men get neither pensions nor temporary grants nor anything else. Let me make the position clear. We have nothing whatever to do, as a Pensions Ministry, with men in Class W. We are concerned solely with the discharged soldier. When the man is in Class W he is not a discharged soldier, but comes under the War Office. The intention, as I understand, of Class W is this: Men in civilian employment may be transferred to Class W. They have got no Army pay, and they receive ordinary civilian wages, but if at any time they are discharged as disabled, then they will get a pension from the Pensions Ministry. What has happened to them in this matter is that a number of men have been transferred to Class W who are unfit for work, and consequently those men are getting neither Army pay nor civilian wages nor pensions, and, I am bound to say, a very considerable scandal has arisen. Although it does not really come within our field, an arrangement has been made by my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister with the War Office that during the time, or, rather, pending the time during which the War Office is re-classifying these men—and I believe a large number are being re-classified—a temporary allowance shall be made by the Pensions Ministry to those men who are unfit and unable to work, and that when they are discharged they will then get a pension which will date back to the time when they were first disabled. Of course, it is only fair to add that the temporary allowance will be deducted from the pension. I think hon. Members will agree that that is a perfectly fair proposal. At all events it will meet the present difficulty that an arrangement will be made between the Pensions Minister and the War Office, which I hope will remove a state of affairs which really was becoming rather scandalous at the present moment.

I desire to say a few words on a matter which, as my right hon. Friend has already said in his opening speech, is really-more important from the national point of view than merely giving pensions and that is how we are to get these men treated so that they will become perfectly well and re-educated, and in that way become once more members of our industrial community. I can assure hon. Members, that even if insufficient has been done up to the present, and I quite agree not nearly as much has been done as I should like to have seen done, my right hon. Friend and myself feel the immense importance of this question. And I say if, in a few years' time, we find that we have not succeeded in getting the majority of these men back to useful work, and if we find vast numbers of pensioners simply loafing about eking out small pensions by charity and going into public-houses and into workhouses, then. I think, the Pensions Ministry will have failed in its duty. It must be recognised, of course, that the question is immensely difficult. The hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman), and other hon. Members, have spoken of the difficulty which is caused by the fact that the War Office have been unable to keep these men under discipline until they are either completely cured or re-educated, or both. I quite agree that if the War Office could keep them under discipline the matter would be solved, because we could compel those men to undergo treatment and also to be trained for useful work, when, perhaps, their original line of work was no longer possible to them. Rut the War Office are unable to do that. It is not for me to criticise the War Office. Let us remember that their duty is to restore men to the fighting line, that they are bound to see that as many men as possible are cured in the military hospitals and that they cannot, therefore, for ever be keeping in those hospitals men who are no longer fit to fight.

It remains, therefore, for the Pensions Ministry to devise such schemes as it can for dealing with these men. I think that my right hon. Friend and I myself may take credit for this: that we have endeavoured in this Warrant, even though it may not go as far as some hon Members would like or as far as we would like, both by putting in certain penalties and by giving certain advantages, pecuniary and others, to take every step we could to try to induce these men to undergo treatment and training. I am very glad that the proposal that a man who is certified as requiring further treatment should lose half his pension if he refuses to undergo it has been generally supported by the Committee. We do not intend to carry it out in any harsh or arbitrary spirit, Where it is a case in which it is necessary for a man to undergo a severe surgical operation, in such cases we should not impose the penalty upon him. In the great majority of cases no surgical operation would be necessary, but merely that gradual treatment, that physio-therapy of which the hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn spoke, the gradual treatment by machines, massage, whirlpool baths, and so on, which, without any severe operation, can cure and make useful a limb that was useless. We say that if a man is certified as requiring that sort of treatment and refuses to have it, we have the right to say. "Very well, we shall deprive you of half your pension."

That is what we propose as regards further treatment, coupling with it other advantages—a pension at the highest rate while the man is undergoing treatment, separation allowance for the family, and the payment of fees, if fees or charges have to be paid to the institution where he is being treated. It is the same with training. We do not propose, in the case of training, that a man should be fined if he refuses to undergo it, because it is impossible for anyone to lay down absolutely whether a man ought to undergo training or not. As regards treatment. the doctor can say. As regards training it is often a matter of opinion, and no one can speak authoritatively about it. Therefore, in the case of training, while there is no penalty if the man refuses, there is a very considerable pecuniary inducement in the way of a bonus if he will undergo it. We hope by these methods to get as many of these discharged men as possible to undergo treatment and training. But I recognise this. It is no good having these penal powers and these inducements unless we have facilities all over the country for carrying out the treatment and training, and here I think more might have been done up to the present than has been done. I quite agree that the Statutory Committee has done a great deal of good work in clearing the ground, in gaining experience, and in starting institutions in various parts of the country. We want to carry that policy much further, and my right hon. Friend and I are taking every step possible to see that the country is covered both with institutions for totally disabled men and also with facilities for treatment and training for those who are capable of receiving it.

Something has been asked about Scotland. The hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. Millar) asked us not to forget Scotland. What my hon. Friend is aiming at doing is this. He recognises that the local committees which have been doing much splendid work what I may call local work—that is, supplementing separation allowances and granting supplemental pensions can undertake to do that very well in their localities, but when it comes to treatment and training you must work over larger areas. I know it is in the mind of my right hon. Friend very shortly to pay a visit to Scotland for the purpose of trying to inaugurate some central executive for the whole of Scotland to undertake the treatment and training of disabled Scottish soldiers. We have already done the same sort of thing in Lancashire. We had a great meeting at Preston the other day with the Lord-Lieutenant in the chair, at which representatives of the local committees, not only of Lancashire county, but every city and borough in Lancashire, were present and they agreed to form a central executive for treatment and training in Lancashire. We hope to do the same sort of thing in Scotland and also in Wales. I am personally engaged now in arranging for some kind of national scheme for Wales. This matter is very much upon our minds and we hope to be able to deal in a comprehensive way with various parts of the country in providing these facilities which are very much wanted at present. I would ask hon. Members not to depreciate their own country. There has been some comparison with other countries. I do not think there is any desire to depreciate what has been done here, but after all a good deal has been done. My hon Friend (Sir H. Norman), in that most interesting Report he-wrote, told us of some of the magnificent institutions they have in France—Paris, Lyons, and so on for treatment and reeducation. If I were to take a distinguished Frenchman and show him St. Dunstan's Home for the Blind, or some of Lord Roberts' workshops, if I showed him men undergoing training in new trades in some of the technical schools at Birmingham, if I took him to Roehampton, if I took him to any of Dr. Robert Jones' orthopædic hospitals, or if I took him to the magnificent hospital I visited the other day, where the very latest system of physiotherapy is in operation, a hospital supported by the firm of Pilkington's, of St. Helens, that distinguished stranger would go back and write a report pointing out how magnificently we treat our wounded soldiers. I quite agree that enough has not been done. We hope to do more. We hope, with the power of the new Warrant and the much more favourable provision it makes for our disabled soldiers, and by the honest work and co-operation of all interested in the question to endeavour as far as we can to put back the disabled soldier in the position he would have occupied but for the War. It has been said that there has been a great scandal in years gone by that our heroes have gone to the workhouse. I cannot say that no soldier disabled in this War will go to the workhouse, but I do say it will be our object to see that there is no necessity for any soldier to go to the workhouse. If he will take the pension given by the Warrant and take the opportunity which will be provided for him to get back into industrial life there is no reason why he should ever go to the workhouse, but there is every reason why he should come back and become once more a useful member of society.

Mr. BILLING

I should have liked to have made my few remarks before the hon. and gallant Member replied. There was one point I wanted to have cleared up, if I could, and that was the definition of what is "on duty" and what is "off duty." Are we to understand that it is necessary before a man can be entitled to any of the numerous, and in some instances generous, benefits under this Warrant that he shall have suffered while on duty? There are many occasions when it is difficult to define, unless it is defi finitely laid down, when a man is on duty or oft duty. I will take, for example, a soldier who is lent to a farmer for the purpose of tilling his land. He may know nothing about a chaff-cutting machine, and may get his fingers cut off in a chaff-cutting machine. It is difficult to know whether he is on duty in the military sense when he is lent to a farmer. There is another instance—one in which I am particularly interested—where an accident may happen to a man through faulty hand-grenades, or what is known as piece-flying. Are we to understand that this Warrant provides that any man, no matter in what condition he is, who is injured by piece-flying in this country, his work comes under the Warrant, and he benefits under the Warrant? I have raised this point many times before, and the only answer I have received was that, so far as it went in the past, it did not come under the Warrant Men carrying on experiments with hand-grenades who had their hands blown off through faulty hand-grenades, have written to me to say that they can get no pension and no allowance. I do not know whether that is provided for. Another question is that of encouraging men back to work. I am quite sure that any hon. Member who has given this matter consideration is most anxious that men should be encouraged back to work as soon as possible, but many instances have come to notice which hardly act as an encouragement, but rather as a deterrent, to men to get back to work. An instance was brought to my notice where a man was shot through the base of the spine and was suffering from paralysis. He had a pension of 25s. 6d. a week, which he endeavoured to augment by doing some sort of work. He went to one of Lord Roberts' homes, or workshops, and was going on very well, and on that account he had his pension reduced from 25s. to 14s. He was earning some money, and getting better, but the result of this work he undertook caused a complete breakdown in health, and now he is back in his home, completely broken in health, through endeavouring to work, and at the same time he has had his pension reduced from 25s. to 14s. I think that if the Minister of Pensions would make quite clear that a man should not suffer as to his pension by endeavouring to augment it by work outside, it would clear up misunderstandings which, I think, are pretty common. Of course, it is only reasonable that a man will make the best case he can for himself, and there is that feeling that if a man tries to augment his pension by working or taking up a trade, when he goes up for his next examination it will be brought up as evidence not for him, but against him. I would like very much to have that point made quite clear.

Another case is that of a widow who has a son who may be a student or may have been apprenticed to some trade. Cases have come to my notice, and I dare say there are many, of widows having a small income who most probably sacrificed or mortgaged that income in the interests of a son, possibly an only son, whom the widow was most anxious to send to a university or put to some trade. That boy gets killed. It is readily understood that, though she may be in reduced circumstances, she suffers from that form of poverty which I am quite sure hon. Members must understand to be the most terrible form of poverty from which anyone can suffer—that is, genteel poverty. Most probably she had looked to this son to support her in future. Though she may not be in her dotage, though she may not be suffering from any physical infirmity, she may be a delicately-nurtured woman to whom it is an impossibility to go to work. Yet, because she cannot go before a committee and explain that she is in her dotage or is infirm, she gets no compensation whatever for the loss of her boy, for whom she had made such sacrifices in order to put him on a professional status.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whom he considers responsible for the delay which takes place between the time a soldier is discharged and the time his case is settled? Hon. Members will agree that there is no case for any delay. As far as I can see, there is no case for discharge until one authority is ready to receive him. Surely he can remain on the strength of the other. Even though he cannot be kept in hospital, there is no need to kick him out. I think that he can be given indefinite leave and given his pay and allowances for whatever rank he has until such time as the new authority can take over his case. That is only fair. There is another point. It seems so difficult in this House to grasp that no form of disciplinary power can be exercised over a man to train him after he returns slightly injured. I can quite conceive that the authorities could if they had wished not discharge a man for twelve months, and draft him into a regiment or battalion which is reserved purely for training him to some useful vocation in industrial occupation. He can be trained before he is discharged. The general idea is that the minute a man is hurt and of no further use as a fighting machine he must be kicked out, and then there must be a period during which he is in No Man's Land, incurring most probably debts and obligations, and then another authority takes him over. I really would beg the Minister of Pensions to give consideration to the question as to whether these men should not be allowed for some time their pay and allowances. Surely it is the State that should pay, and not the individual who has suffered. If any Government official—military, naval, or civil—makes any blunder it is the State which pays for it, and it is rather unfair, when a particular individual is victimised by the blunders of any given Department, that it is he who has to pay. There is another point to which an hon. Member who has spoken seemed to think no serious attention need be paid, and that is the question of coloured troops. There are thousands of men who could not be called coloured men and who are not readily distinguishable from white men, at the present moment in our Army, and the point is, that if these men come to fight for us we should properly recognise that fact. I do not want to make a sweeping assertion, but I think that any man who is good enough to fight for us is good enough to be recognised, and it should be remembered that in the case of their discharge, these men will be let loose in this country. They came from Canada and Africa to fight for us, and if they are to be let loose in this country without any form of support or pension, I think it will create, if I may say so, something in the form of a scandal.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law)

May I beg the hon. Member to let us have this Vote to-night? The whole subject can be discussed on Report, and I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to let us have the Vote now.

Mr. BILLING

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the subject is likely to come up again?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I hope to be able to put it down for next week. I have not the least desire to prevent discussion.

Mr. BILLING

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said I will not pursue my observations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.