§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HOGGEYesterday I gave notice that I would raise to-day, on the Adjournment, certain problems affecting the Pensions Warrant, on account of what seems to me to be the still unsatisfactory nature of several existing provisions. We had published in the Press a few days ago a Report submitted to the Members of this House by the Committee on Financial Expenditure, presided over by my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel), and in that review, from the financial aspect of pension administration, they drew attention to certain customs and habits at Chelsea and elsewhere, which must have indicated to hon. Members who were not fully intimate with all the changes in the Pension Warrants, the justice of a considerable amount of the criticism which has from time to time been made against both the award and the administration of pensions. I refer in particular to the extraordinary statement contained in that Report that it was left to temporary girl clerks in the employment of the Ministry of Pensions at Chelsea to determine what should happen in the case of discharged men whose disability had been assessed by a medical board outside, and to say whether or not that medical report, about which they could have no intimate knowledge, should be sent on to a special medical board for a decision as to the amount of pension which should be paid as a result of the award. That is one indication of the con fusion which still exists on the administrative side at Chelsea. I am one of those who believe that this country has not completed what one has frequently called the active prosecution of the War until they have satisfied the legitimate claims and demands of the men who have been discharged. The point to which attention is drawn in this Report is an illustration of the kind of thing that one means.
Take another question which is replied to this afternoon in reference to the over hauling of the system at Chelsea. We were told that an eminent accountant had finished his work of overhauling the system, and that next Monday we might expect a better administration from Chelsea than we have now. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on the Front Bench I would like to put certain questions to him and to have them 1262 replied to. It is much better to put these things to him direct rather than through someone else, who may not be able to take adequate notes. I do not criticise my hon. Friend who has been taking notes, but the other day, when he took notes for the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, in his reply, said he had got very adequate notes from my hon. Friend, and then the Prime Minister passed over all the best notes that had been made and replied only to the worst ones. I want to get to closer grips with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the new Warrant. Yesterday, in a question which he answered, he seemed to indicate that at the back of my mind I had an idea that he was not so sympathetic as the rest of us in regard to pensions. I can assure him that none of us supposes that for a moment. Every one of us recognises the difficulty of his position—first, in addressing himself to this problem as a man and then as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I admit quite freely and frankly that I have never approached my right hon. Friend on the question of pensions without his receiving one's representations in the spirit that one would expect. One has not always got as much as one always wanted from him, but I have no complaint to make on that score. My right hon. Friend told us that the Pensions Minister had submitted a War rant to the Treasury, and, as a result of the submission of that Warrant to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend has submitted, or is submitting, it to a Committee of Ministers to overhaul it and make recommendations to him. In the first place, every one of those Ministers who are on that Committee are extremely busy men, and I do not know that they have very particular recommendations for doing this work of criticising the Warrant.
I would like my right hon. Friend much more frequently than he does to take ad vantage of the opinion of Members of this House, and others outside this House, who have had administrative experience in determining what is the right amount of pay in connection with disability of all kinds. My right hon. Friend said that he would consider whether or not the Warrant shall be laid before the House in such a way that it can be discussed before decisions can be come to. That was done before. The Warrant was introduced in the House, and we had a long discussion—if I remember rightly, a whole day's discussion—on the Warrant, but, as a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend knows 1263 perfectly well that the House of Commons has no method known to him and no method known to me—and I think, between us, we have a fair idea of what can be done—by which the House can definitely alter a single line of that Warrant. It is brought before the House in such a way that the House has very little to do with it in the last resort. If, for instance, it was pro posed after debate in this House, and after the majority of Members expressed the view, that we should give, say, 100s. instead of 10s. in a particular case, the House could not put that into the War rant. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend agrees to submit the Warrant to the House before it is definitely settled, that does not really mean very much. I should like to suggest to him that a very much better way would be to consult those in this House who have made some study of this problem, and who, in the light of their experience could, at any rate, advance a view whether it is acceptable or not in regard to the Warrant. What criticism I have made and what questions I have put on the Paper in regard to the Warrant have arisen from the fact that I was not satisfied with what is known as Barnes' Warrant, and I have sought to improve that Warrant until we have got to the level of getting the Leader of the House to do in the new Warrant exactly what he did in that.
There is one subject about which I am more keen than any other, and I would like something more than a promise from the right hon. Gentleman as to what is to be done. I refer specifically to the pension that is paid to the widows and children of men who are killed in this War. We are going away for a fortnight's holiday, and I suppose during that holiday none of us will feel the pinch of circumstances very much; but my right hon. Friend knows that the widow and children of a man who has been killed in this War is now in receipt of less money than she received when she was the wife of the husband who has been killed. Perhaps my right hon. Friend does not know in detail what actually happens, but the sentence I have just spoken to a large extent covers it, although it does not cover the whole. My right hon. Friend knows that, in addition to the fact that the woman has more money in separation allowance as the wife of a serving soldier, she also has the rent of the house in which she lives 1264 paid; but when she drops to a pension that amount is entirely removed, so that the widow and children of a man who is killed has not only less money in pension than she had in separation allowance, but she has the other burden thrust upon her of finding the rent which was previously provided for her while her husband was fighting. That cannot be right, and it is not right. We have put that ease to the Leader of the House over and over again, and it is that kind of alteration that I want making at once if the Leader of the House will agree.
There are a great many other points in the Warrant in which one would give and take. There are a great many other changes in the Warrant which, he says, quite truly, that involve a large expenditure of money. I should not be worried about that, but it is quite a different matter when he is faced with it. I do not think, however, that there can be any hesitancy about this particular case. My right hon. Friend will see that the question of the sum of money involved is not much relatively, if he considers the figures that are now available to the public, as to the number of people that are being dealt with by the Pensions Minister. My right hon. Friend knows that something like 1,250,000 people are being dealt with under the pensions Warrant. Of these, over 200,000 are officers, disabled men and nurses in receipt of disability pensions. Some 120,000 are widows who have definitely lost their sole support in the War. There are half a million children, and probably 150,000 other dependants. It may be noted that there are only 120,000 widows out of the million and a quarter being dealt with. It is only fair to assume that of the half-million children a certain proportion are the children of the widows, and it is also probable that a much larger proportion are the children of disabled soldiers who are in receipt of pensions, so that probably it will be fair to say that the number affected by the increase I am suggesting is not more than 250,000. I want the Leader of the House before we part for the Easter Recess to definitely give these widows and children to under stand that there is to be no longer delay in the raising of their pension. They can not get now as when they were wives, certain grants from the local war pensions committees. The fact of death cuts them off from much better provision to which they were entitled when their husband was alive. I have never understood it, and I 1265 cannot understand it. I cannot under stand why the Government have delayed so long in coming to a decision, and that when a proposal is put forward to in crease these pensions they refer it back to this Committee.
I want the Government to live up to its reputation of doing things now. I have heard it stated to-day—it is not in the Press, but my right hon. Friend knows that in certain parts of this building one hears rumours of what is going on—that the Government have at last decided to bring into some kind of line with the figures that exist now the pensions to soldiers who have suffered disabilities in previous wars, and to the widows of those soldiers. The arguments for that need not be stated at any very great length except by way of illustration. The widow of a man who was killed in the Boer War is entitled to a pension of 5s. a week, and the childless widow of a man killed in this War is drawing 13s. 9d. a week. There is a difference of 8s. 9d. between the two cases. A man who lost his, right arm, for instance, in the Boer War will draw a pension for that war of 10s. 6d., whereas a man under the Pensions Warrant now will get 22s. 6d. Anomalies of that kind cannot stand. I would be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can say definitely this afternoon that the Government have finally agreed to make some provision to deal with cases of that kind. A third point is this. I would like my right hon. Friend to pass over to the Committee which is investigating the amounts which are to be paid a few other questions. I will bring one case to his notice, in order to establish what seems to me to be an unwarranted hardship in the administration of pensions. I had a letter by this morning's post which touches the point I want to raise, and will explain the matter much more briefly than I can. The man writes from a sanatorium, and says:
I am a discharged soldier at present under treatment at the above institution. While I am a patient here I am compelled to contribute 7s. per week for my maintenance, which is being stopped weekly from my pension. Am I bound to pay for my maintenance out of my pension? I have been a contributor to the National Health Insurance since it came into force. Can you enlighten me on this subject, as it concerns many other discharged men from both Services?Does my right hon. Friend know that when a discharged soldier, as in this case, suffering from tuberculosis, is sent to an institution to recover, if possible, first of all his pension is put up to the highest 1266 rate of disability—namely, 27s. 6d. —but the moment he goes to the hospital Is. a day is deducted from the pension to maintain him in that hospital, so that his pension is at once reduced to 20s. 6d? Does my right hon. Friend clearly under stand that in the 27s. 6d. there is 5s. of the 10s. a week payment to which he would be entitled under the National Health Insurance scheme arrangement, which my right hon. Friend made when his Warrant was drawn up by which the Pensions Minister took over payment of half the 10s. under the National Health Insurance scheme, so that what the Government really are giving is only 15s. a week as the other 5s. a week is paid under the National Health Insurance scheme? Would my right hon. Friend himself not consider it a very great injustice if, after he had paid all these years into the National Health Insurance scheme and after he had paid for one of the benefits, namely, free treatment in a sanatorium, as a result of that payment, simply because he happens to be a discharged soldier he should have deducted from his pension payable for his disability 7s. a week to maintain him in hospital for which he has been contributing his money all the time? This is really an example of the man paying 9d. for 4d. That kind of thing is not just. I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is felt keenly by a great many men who would rather have a fixed sum as pension and no deduction made than to have money paid which is subject to deduction. I would suggest that when creating Committees to deal with the Warrant and payments under the Warrant, questions of that kind should be put before them, not ordinary administrative points but administrative points which involve questions of finance. There are many other points involved on which I could take up the time of the House, but I do not propose to do so. I shall be perfectly satisfied if I can get, on the authority of my right hon. Friend, some definite statement as to the widows and children, and in that case I shall go away happier for my Easter Recess, and I am quite sure that the Leader of the House will also do the same.
§ Sir C. SEELYI desire to draw attention to one question connected with pensions which was raised earlier this afternoon. It is the question of allowance to the guardians of motherless children of men who have been killed. At present it is possible for the local committees to 1267 grant, in addition to children's allowances, allowances for a person who is looking after them constantly—it may be a sister or sister-in-law. As explained in answer to a question to-day, that Grant cannot be continued by the Pensions Committee. What we were told was that the local committees have no direct power to continue those allowances to the guardians of motherless children in the case of the death of the father, that they may continue the allowance granted for twenty-six weeks but that it is a temporary arrangement. Then it says that where there are special circumstances they may, after the expiration of that time, make a recommendation to the Special Grants Committee, which in suitable cases are pre pared to sanction a temporary allowance. That does provide for immediate cases at the moment, but I do think the Government Pensions Committee should take into consideration that the permanent arrangement is generally desirable where a man is killed and leaves a motherless family, and that the relation or whoever it may be who was looking after the children should have the temporary allowance which is made while he is alive continued as a pension—at all events, while the children are growing up—after his death. Of course, the number of cases will, I hope, not be relatively very big, as this only applies to children who have lost their mother and whose father is afterwards killed when fighting for us, but I would be very glad if the matter were taken into consideration.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law)The point which has just been put by my hon. Friend is one for the Minister of Pensions. I can only say that the case, as he puts it, seems to have a great deal to commend it; but, at any rate, there is something to be said on the other side, and we shall have to hear that before a decision is given. In reference to the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh I gladly recognise—for I have read the Warrant myself—that the opportunities for making speeches which it affords to anyone who has given as much study to the subject as he has would enable us to spend the whole of the holidays here listening to a discussion if he had chosen to go into all the points that might be raised. I am, therefore, very grateful to him for the brevity of the remarks which he has addressed to us to-day. He asked, practically, three 1268 specific questions. The last was in regard to a soldier suffering from tuberculosis who went into a sanatorium. Like the point raised by my hon. Friend opposite, it is one in regard to which I have no knowledge. It has been arranged by the Pensions Committee on some definite system. As my hon. Friend puts it, again there is nothing to be said against his view; but I do not know how the matter stands. It is possible, even from what the hon. Member says, that the arrangement about the continuance of the insurance allowance was done in such a way as to give the soldier some benefit as compared with the civilian.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIf that is true, there is really something to be said on the other side. It is obvious that if a man goes to a sanatorium, and is saving there expense to which he would be put somewhere else, then, on the assumption which I have made, it would not be unjust that the sanatorium should get part of the money which other wise he would spend in treating himself. But that is a question as to the facts of the arrangement. I will look into it myself, and will be prepared to treat every question of the kind fairly. The other question was that of pensions to soldiers before the present War. I do not think the hon. Member is in any doubt as to what are the views of the Government. In reply to a question asked it was stated that the subject was going to be considered, and it is obvious that I would not have said that if I had not intended to do something. We are doing something, but I am not in a position to say exactly what it will be. Of course, as a matter of con tract, if one were to treat it solely in that way, there would be no case whatever for those who had received pensions in previous wars. But when the matter was brought to my notice I felt that we were not entitled to look at it altogether in that way. I think that as the result of this War the sense of justice of the community as a whole has changed in relation to what should be done to men who have been engaged in fighting our battles. There has been a change in the whole spirit. If that is so, it seems to me—and I am quite sure that the whole House of Commons, however anxious we are to save money, would feel that it was right—that if it means that the moral sense of the 1269 community has changed, then that should be taken into consideration in respect of those who have fought in previous wars.
As regards the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend said that he spoke as if he imagined that because I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I had no human sympathy, I do not take that view, but I did notice some references in the Press about the Treasury which seemed to imply that whenever you get there you get to a stony substance which has no human sympathies at all, and that was due in part to a speech, which I read with much interest, which was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions. The Press rather treated that as if, in fact, my right hon. Friend was engaged in sitting upon the Treasury. Now, for this purpose, the Treasury is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because no one can refuse sanction to a thing of the kind except the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have the greatest, I was going to say respect, but I have the greatest liking for my right hon. Friend, but I must say that I would not like to be sat upon by him, and I would not wish any idea to be entertained abroad that there was any difference between the Pensions Minister and the Government as a whole as to the necessity of dealing fairly with cases of this kind. I agree that there has been no change whatever in the way in which from the first it was intended to deal with this question. The House remembers that in the history of this question of pensions a proposal was introduced by the Government of the day which was generous in character and an advance beyond any thing that had ever been done before, and which the House appreciated. But, for all that, when it came before the House the moral sense to which I have referred realised that what was proposed was hardly enough under present conditions. The result was that on my own suggestion a Select Committee was appointed to go into the whole question, and in consequence of that a scale of pensions and allowances was adopted which beyond all question was generous as compared with anything that had ever been done in this or in any other country. I believe that the longer this War continues the more the people of this country realise what it is causing in suffering and the more the moral sense of the community is inclined to an extension of benefactions to those who suffer. Last year, when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. 1270 Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) brought in another Warrant. It came before the Treasury and that Department subjected it to a careful examination. That is the only thing that can be done by any Chancellor of the Exchequer in a case of the kind; he has to submit it to the careful scrutiny of that Department and to consider the question of means and of methods by which pensions are to be given. When the right hon. Member for Blaekfriars brought in another Warrant I at once determined to take the same course as on the first occasion and have it examined by the experts of the Treasury. This was done, and then I said to my right hon. Friend that I was going to put the matter before a Committee, as had been done before; but, I added, before this is done, I wish the matter to be thoroughly gone into by the Ministry of Pensions in order to see to what extent it agrees with the criticisms of the Treasury. That is the position now. The danger is not that human nature and human sympathy will be insufficient, but the danger is rather the other way and that our sympathy may carry us too far, and really extend further than, perhaps, it ought to go. Having said that, I hope my hon. Friend will see that it is not reason able to ask me to give away or to prejudge what the Committee is doing, or what it is going definitely to decide in this case or in that. At the risk of being supposed to be unsympathetic, I feel bound to say that I do not think the statement of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh is one which really ought to be taken absolutely for granted, that where a husband is killed the women and children automatically ought to be as well off as they were when he was alive.
§ Mr. HOGGEThat was not my contention. What I said was that you are giving, from the point of view of maintenance and physical efficiency, less to the children of the man who has been killed while serving in the War than when he was alive, and you take away their rent.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt is obvious from what the hon. Member says that we are not speaking of the same thing, but I will leave that point, and I do not think the House will consider that I should under take to give any definite statement on these points while they are still being: deliberated upon by the Committee. But I am prepared to say this: I have spoken to the members of the Committee, and 1271 they are going to set about this work as quickly as possible, and I am sure there will be no delay. Before I sit down I wish again to point out to those Members of the House of Commons who are present that there is nothing in the world so easy as for all of us to get the applause of everyone by asking for something more, and I do rely upon the House of Commons to realise, and I think the House of Commons does realise, that both it and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have responsibility in these matters, but I can promise on behalf of the Government that the sympathy which we all feel will not be lacking in dealing with the matter; but I do ask hon. Members that we should at the same time take into account the immense sums of money which are involved.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe Chancellor of the Exchequer, in circumstances of this kind, has to hold the balance between the interests of the public purse and the interests of those in whose behalf our sympathies are naturally engaged. If I enter into this discussion to-day, I do so in my capacity of chairman of the Committee on National Expenditure. That Committee has recently examined the expenditure of the Ministry of Pensions and has reported. I myself had the honour of being chairman of the Select Committee which examined the question of pensions, and later reported upon it. A Sub-committee, following its recommendations, has reported on matters of pensions, and one circumstance which, above all else, ought to be borne in mind is that the nation must deal generously with those who have suffered in this War, and that no man should have the right to complain of niggardly treatment on the part of the State for whom he has fought, and in whose service he has suffered. That is the prime principle that must always be borne in mind. But that is a principle which, while we all recognise it, lends itself to very grave abuses. We know that there have been these abuses in other countries. We know, in the United States of America, how grossly the natural claim for sympathy and generosity on the part of those who have fought in its wars has been abused. Further, it must be borne in mind that claims may be made on the part of people who have suffered in the War which might be almost unlimited. You cannot assess in terms of money the loss that a man may suffer through physical disability, 1272 from wounds, the loss of a limb, or the loss of eyesight. A healthy young man, full of life and energy, goes into the War and is blinded. Is a pension of 27a. 6d. a week for life any compensation for his loss of eyesight—is 50s. a week, is 100s., is a £l,000 a year? How can we say what would recompense him for the loss of his eyesight? There are cases of that kind that cannot be limited in terms of money. If the hon. Member for East Edinburgh were to say, "Here you have a man from the War who has lost his eye sight," how can you say that a pension of 50s., or some other sum, a week is adequate? You can never give an answer as to the adequacy or inadequacy of a pension in circumstances of that kind.
Nevertheless, you must adopt a figure, and you must do so with some regard to the public purse. In the Report of the Committee we have given an illustration of the evils that may arise in the case of a pension. Claims are being made that pensions should be given to persons who have really never suffered at all in the War, men who have never been to the front, men who were subject to physical disability before they came into the Army, who ought never to have been brought into the Army, but who have been brought into the Army and who have left it, their health being just the same when they came out of the Army as it was when they went into it. A claim is made on their behalf that a, large sum should be paid by the taxpayers in pensions to them. Claims are made that permanent pensions should be granted to certain people because of the present abnormal prices of commodities, though these prices may be reduced after the War. Suggestions are made as to pensions for parents in respect of sons, although they were not dependent on those sons, or had no prospect of be coming dependent upon them, but the pensions are suggested merely by way of compensation for the loss they have suffered. All these matters and others have to be considered, and the purpose for which I rise to-day is to remind the House that when we are discussing questions of national economy it urges the Government to a careful examination of additional claims upon it, yet, when there is any question of expenditure in relation to questions such as are now raised, it would appear that the whole House is unanimous in admitting every claim for increased expenditure in any direction 1273 where it is on behalf of people who have suffered in the War. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while desirous of acting justly—and, indeed, generously—towards those who have really suffered in the War, is expected to safe guard, at the same time, the interests of the public purse, the interests of the tax payer, and to see that sympathy shall not be allowed to extend so far as to lead to lavish expenditure from the public purse on persons who have really not suffered in the War, but whose claims may be attached to other legitimate claims though not in themselves so legitimate. I am glad to know that these questions are being examined by the Committee, and I hope they will be considered in that spirit.
§ Major D. DAVIESI wish to refer to some remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made, and to draw his attention to one or two grievances in connection with this subject of pensions. Attention has been called to the case of a man who, while in a sanatorium, and who was a contributor under the National Insurance Act, had to contribute a portion of his pension to his maintenance there. The Insurance Commissioners came to an arrangement with the Pensions Ministry whereby the Pensions Ministry paid £10 per head on behalf of each discharged roan who went to a sanatorium. That sum of £10 in no way covers the cost of the treatment in the sanatorium, and the result is that of the balance of the cost half falls on the Treasury and the other half on the rates. The county councils feel that they have a grievance, especially against the Treasury, by the treatment of these discharged soldiers falling upon the rates, whereas, in their opinion, it ought to come from the Ministry of Pensions, which should be responsible for their treatment. Owing to the fact that so many men have gone into the Army, the sanatorium benefit fund has de creased enormously since the commencement of the War, and the county councils have to bear the extra cost from the rates. The county councils argument is that the diminution in the amount paid into the sanatorium benefit fund is a legitimate charge on the Treasury, and not upon the rates. There is one other matter to which I desire to refer, and that is as to an increase of pay for soldiers who are fighting in the Serbian Army. I understood the right hon. Gentleman 1274 to say that this matter has not come up before the Treasury at the present time and that no recommendations have been made to him with regard to it. We all know perfectly well that the lot of the Serbian soldier has always been a hard one. He has for years been fighting away from his country, and, at the same time, he should be doing so for those whom he has left behind in Serbia and who are under the control of our enemies. I think it is not unreasonable to ask that the Government should give this matter their close attention, and that they should increase the rate which they fixed some time ago, when circumstances were quite different from what they are to-day. I think if the right hon. Gentle man makes inquiries he will find that recommendations have gone to the Treasury in connection with this matter, and I hope he may take those into consideration and give effect to them. I can assure him that there is a great deal of distrust and anxiety on the part of the county councils with regard to this question of insurance benefit. They hope that the Government will, at an early date, place this responsibility once and for all quite definitely on the Pensions Ministry, and that the agreement which has been arrived at between the Insurance Commissioners and the Pensions Ministry will be reconsidered and a proper arrangement come to.