§ As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
§ NEW CLAUSE.—(Devolution of administrative powers.)
§ Within a period of nine months after the passing of this Act, the undermentioned branches of administration shall be devolved upon the headquarters of the pensions regions established by the Minister:—
§ Registration of artificial limbs;
§ Pensions issue office;
§ The powers and duties of the special grants committee in so far as paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section three of the principal Act, as modified by the Naval and Military War Pensions (Transfer of Powers) Act of 1917, are concerned, and which shall be construed accordingly.
§ Provided that no officers or civil servants, transferred or distributed as a result of this section, shall be in any worse position as respects their tenure of office and salary than they would have been apart from the provisions of this Section.—[Mr. W. Graham.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAMI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause concerns a subject which was not discussed at all in Committee upstairs, because there was more or less general agreement that we should postpone this particular issue until the Report stage. This Clause, which is supported in various parts of the House, provides that within a period of nine months after the passing of this Act, the registration of artificial limbs, the Pensions Issue Office, and the powers and duties of the Special Grants Committee shall be decentralised. I propose purposely to leave out of debate the Special Grants Committee, because I understand the hon. and gallant Member for Tradeston (Major Henderson) will follow me and will speak with greater 2743 knowledge and detail on that point than I can, but I venture to press very strongly the decentralisation of the registration of artificial limbs, mainly on the ground that the existing system of centralisation leads to delay, and perhaps penalises people who require care and attention, and what we commonly call the higher grade forms of disability. I think I shall carry with me all hon. Members in the desire to place within the reach of disabled men at the earliest possible moment the best appliances which we can obtain for them, and certainly the very latest and best artificial limbs. I am informed by disabled men that the present method involves a delay, and they ascribe that delay, rightly or wrongly, to the centralisation of the registration of artificial limbs. I have no desire to minimise the difficulties of the Ministry of Pensions in this matter. All of us who have had experience either on the Joint Disablement Committees or on the Regional Advisory Councils know the very great difficulties attached to this work but even admitting the difficulty of the standardisation of these limbs, I fail to understand why we should not be able to decentralise the registration and to put the men much more rapidly into touch with the authorities specially ministering to their needs in what is a very important item. The other parts of my motion, from some points of view, are far more important. We propose to decentralise the pension issue office, and we suggest in this new clause that that process of paying pensions should be undertaken in the various 12 or 13 regions which have been established—that that should be added to the other work of assessment or determination of the pension which is now carried out in the different regions throughout the country. May I explain the terrible weakness of the present position?
Very soon, I think, after the present Parliament was elected, a Decentralisation Committee was appointed which was representative of the authorities dealing with pension matters, and of the different political points of view of the House. We expressly recommended a scheme of decentralisation which led to the establishment of the regional councils. We pushed our recommendations beyond that on general lines supporting decentralisation 2744 as a principle in war pensions which should be adopted to the fullest possible extent. What has happened under that recommendation? We have handed over to the dozen or so Regional Councils the assessment and determination of the pensions in those regions: of seeing the men and examining into their circumstances, and of fixing the amount of the pension which is the appropriate amount, having regard to the Royal Warrants in force. That, I am not exaggerating, has been of the greatest benefit to the administration of the pensions, and certainly to the happiness and comfort of the unfortunately large number of people covered by this Bill and previous warrants. What happens? No sooner have we determined the pensions in the regions than the recommendation is sent, not to some department next door for the more or less automatic payment of the pension, but to the centralised Pension Issue Office in London which occupies a large number of public buildings—I am not complaining of that at the moment—and has necessarily a very large staff, but which involves 5 or 6 weeks' delay in the payment of the pension decided upon. That is quite an unbusiness-like proposal.
We seek in this new Clause to carry the recommendations of the Decentralisation Committee to their logical conclusion. We say that unless you pay the pensions more or less on the spot and in the regions, you are going to throw away a very large part of the value of the work which was done by that Committee, and you are not going to obtain that prompt payment of the pension which should be undertaken once the amount is assessed or determined by the local Committee and the Regional Advisory Council. There is no reason in the world why this excessive centralisation should be maintained. On a previous occasion I used words that indicated that the mere payment of the pension was more or less an automatic process. My right hon. Friend demurred, and said that a far greater difficulty was involved than perhaps I, in common with other Members, appreciated. I am willing to modify that statement to-night, and to say there are difficulties, but we have specifically provided in our new Clause for a period of nine months—and we are not tied to that period—during which the change can be gradually made. That a change should be made ultimately hardly 2745 anyone will dispute. We all feel that if you determine the pension on the spot there is no adequate reason why it should not also be paid there, thus avoiding the delay of the present system. If I may anticipate the reply of the right hon. Gentleman I have no doubt he will say that the payment of the pension involves the recognition of changes in the amount and variations from time to time and he will no doubt suggest that this work should be centralised in some department in London. I cannot possibly agree with that view. Changes or variations in the kind of pension appear to be one of the very reasons why we should have this business decentralised and removed to that spot where the people are familiar with the facts. In this way you would avoid delays and at the same time cut out a great deal of unnecessary administrative effort.
I wish to push my last point. Under the existing system where a pension is not forthcoming for five or six weeks the local war pensions committees are requested to make temporary advances. If the pension were paid promptly a great deal of administrative machinery would be rendered unnecessary or would be free to devote its attention to more urgent work. All that machinery and effort is rendered necessary now in the localities by this fatal error of centralisation. I think I have made out a case not merely for the application of the decentralisation report but for the success of the administration of war pensions. I hope my right hon. Friend will adopt this Clause and put into operation a scheme which is recommended practically by the unaminous voice of all those connected with the administration of war pensions in this country.
Major HENDERSONI beg to second the motion.
I think the House will realise that this is a subject of vital importance to the whole administration of war pensions in this country. I do not wish to say anything in regard to the question of artificial limbs, and I only desire to make one reference to the question of the pensions issue office. That is a point which has not been mentioned by the last speaker. It is a question of treatment under the present regulations. The greatest difficulty arises when a man who 2746 is drawing a pension undergoes treatment. When a man is put under treatment under these conditions his paper is withdrawn and the Pension Office is notified in London that he is receiving treatment from his local committee and his pension is stopped. This goes on until he is fit and then a form is sent up to the Pension Issue Office and the man's pension is resumed. It is obvious that when a local committee set up in Scotland has to notify London a considerable time must elapse before anything can be done, and there is always an interval between the treatment allowance ceasing and the pension recommencing. It would be much simpler if the committee in Scotland had only to notify Edinburgh, the regional headquarters, which is nearer than London. In regard to the question of the Special Grants Committee, I would like to say that that Committee was set up some years ago at the very beginning of the establishment of war pensions committees, with two objects. One of those objects was alimentary and the other judicial. No one who has any experience of pensions administration desires that the judicial functions of a committee of that kind, which have always been carried out quite satisfactorily, should be devolved on local committees, because the result would not be of value so far as these judicial functions are concerned because they are better administered from a central point of view, where the central body is entirely out of touch with local influences. On the other hand its alimentary duties are essentially local, and it is entirely wrong that they should be administered centrally. The object of these powers is to enable the committee to issue approved extra grants in certain cases where they are justified by regulations which exist for that purpose. It is impossible for the committee to find out whether the regulations are fulfilled in certain cases unless they make inquiries locally. They have to make such inquiries in all parts of the country. Yet the work for some unknown reason is retained in London. Although we do not advise that the judicial functions should be transferred to local regional headquarters we think it is essential in the interest of administration and economy that the alimentary functions should be transferred to regional headquarters. 2747 I can quite understand there is a certain amount of opposition to this proposal from what I may describe as vested interests in London. If it is carried out these interests will not be so great as at present. They will to a certain extent be whittled down and, human nature being what it is, when people have built up a certain position they naturally do not look upon any proposal to deprive them of it, or to whittle it down, with a particularly sympathetic eye. On the other hand we have a provision in this Amendment to make sure that anybody who is transferred under this proposal should suffer in no way as far as salary is concerned. I appeal to the House to remember that War Pensions administration exists for one purpose only, and that is to administer to the needs of dependents and of the soldiers and sailors themselves, and it cannot justify its existence unless it administers to those needs efficiently and adequately, and if this proposal will improve our administration and tend to make it more adequate and more efficient then it should be accepted by the Minister. I am prepared to admit first that the regional headquarters have no statutory existence. They were set up by the late Minister of Pensions entirely on his own responsibility and without any Parliamentary sanction except perhaps that they were referred to in the Estimates. They have never been referred to in an Act of Parliament, and that fact may from a technical point of view prove a stumbling block. I also realise that the regions were not all established at the same time, and where in some cases the Minister may be quite willing to extend these powers to them in other cases where they are not so efficient he may not be. But it would help a great deal if he will give us an undertaking that if he cannot for some legal reason put this Amendment into the Bill he will agree to carry out some form of devolution so far as these particular administrative functions are concerned.
§ The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson)I would ask the House not to press me with regard to this Clause. As my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Henderson) has pointed out, the regional director is not a statutory person, and the region is not a statutory area, 2748 but I am not dwelling on that point, which as my hon. and gallant Friend remarked, is purely technical. I am dealing with the Clause on its merits. I agree with almost everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Graham), but he must recollect that, rightly or wrongly, the whole Pension Issue Department was centralised in London, and that, as I pointed out in Committee, there are no fewer than 3,500,000 beneficiaries. It is extremely difficult to divide up into eleven distinct regions that tremendous number of beneficiaries within any limited time. I can, however, assure my hon. Friends that this matter is receiving our most careful and earnest consideration at the present time, and I hope comparatively shortly to be able to attempt an experiment, first of all in London and then in Edinburgh, to see how this decentralisation will work. I agree that it is highly desirable that the issue and the award offices should be placed, if possible, in the same building. That is the ideal state of things. Circumstances however, being as they are, after nearly 4½ years' experience, the whole thing being centralised, and there being such an enormous number of beneficiaries, it is difficult to decentralise again on the spur of the moment.
With regard to the registration of artificial limbs, my hon. Friends will remember that a Committee sat to consider this question not very long ago, and came to the unanimous conclusion that it would not be at all advisable to decentralise the whole question of limbs from the central Ministry. If that were done there would at once be competition between the various regions, and one region might fare much better than another. There is a second and even more cogent reason namely, that we have from 30,000 to 40,000 duplicate limbs to supply. As soon as these have been issued, the yearly output of limbs will be from 7,000 to 8,000. We are, however, decentralising the whole of the repairs, and I understand, from information I have received, that, if that is done now, and satisfactorily, it will go a very long way towards meeting the contention which my hon. Friend has put forward. I should also like to tell the House that the Ministry is at present standardising limbs, and if they are standardised it will be very essential that they should 2749 be in the entire possession of the central Ministry in London, and if the limb is standardised, as I hope it will be very soon, and will be produced very soon, I hope there will be no delay such as occurred unfortunately in the distribuion of limbs to the pensioners all over the country.
With regard to the Special Grants Committee, it is, in theory, under the Ministry of Pensions, but it is, in fact, practically independent of them. It is quite clear, if one considers the position for a moment, that it would be very difficult to decentralise the Special Grants Committee. It has come into existence at the instance of Parliament in order to reconsider cases which have already been considered by the Ministry of Pensions, and quite obviously it would not be easy, even if it were well advised, to decentralise this outside, independent statutory body under the control of the regions. The regions being under the control of the Ministry, you would have a very complicated system. Take one point. You must have under the Special Grants Committee uniformity of distribution all over the country. If it were possible under this Bill—in my view it is not, but if it were—you would not get uniformity of distribution of the grant. You would have local pressure here and local pressure there, and you would have so much lack of uniformity that, in my judgment, in a very short time you would have an outcry that this particular independent body should remain as it is now, centralised in London with full powers in the matter and dispensing its bounty in a uniform manner over the entire country. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this. It is my own personal desire and wish that they should get issues in Edinburgh as being the centre of the Scottish region. [Interruption.] I am certainly considering all the regions, but Scotland is so much pressed on me that I am considering Scotland first.
Captain COOTESo far from things improving, they are getting gradually worse. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the misery which is caused, particularly in mental cases, when a man's pension is delayed through no fault of his own.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
2750
§
NEW CLAUSE.—(Functions of joint disablement committees.)
With a view to facilitating the administration of war pensions the status and functions of the joint disablement committees existing in Scotland shall be of such a nature as may be defined by the Minister in any order issued by him within six months after the passing of this Act, due regard being had by him in the making of such an order to any recommendations which may be made by the regional director in Scotland after consultation with his regional advisory council and the joint disablement committees concerned.—Mr. W. Graham.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAMI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The problem which is raised in this Clause is one which I almost hesitate to press upon the House because it is confined entirely to Scotland and we at all events in Edinburgh and Leith have occupied to-night a considerable amount of time. The question is one of the very highest importance. When the war pensions administration was applied to Scotland we established four disablement committees, one for the northern district of Scotland, one for the south-west, one for the central and one for the south-east. These joint disablement committees, which were representative of all forms of activity in war pensions administration, were charged with three duties, the provision of employment for the discharged and disabled, the provision of training and the provision of treatment. In the course of experience since that time their powers and duties have been whittled down. In the first place, employment was taken away from their care and placed under the care of the Ministry of Labour. Later they were deprived of the training of disabled men, and the only duty that survives is the provision of medical treatment and care for the various classes of disability or illness. In Scotland, as the previous debate this evening shows, we attach a very great deal to sentimental considerations, and there is the strongest sentiment in favour of the joint disablement committees. They are familiar with the hospital provision, with the convalescent provision, and all the other curative provisions which exist in the districts over which they preside. They are very anxious with regard to their future, and I regret to say that we have not received from the 2751 Ministry of Pensions any very clear lead on that point. We propose that the powers and duties of the joint disablement committees should be defined at the earliest possible moment, and as I have reason to believe that that is viewed in a not unfriendly spirit by the right hon. Gentleman, I will content myself in the hope that I shall have the support of the House.
Major HENDERSONI beg to second the Amendment.
The real difficulty in Scotland is that these joint disablement committees do not quite know where they are. In the committee which exists in the Glasgow area there is a great deal of uncertainty, even as to whether their expenses should be in the form of a capitation grant or in the form of estimates; there is a great deal of uncertainty in regard to stores, equipment, the opening of clinics, and as to their powers of medical appointment and the appointment of nurses and masseuses. It would facilitate administration enormously if they knew exactly where they stood. It would also avoid a great deal of unnecessary misunderstanding which is bound to arise when you get local committees who do not know how far they can go and how far they cannot go. Although the right hon. Gentleman may not be able to accept the Amendment in this form, I hope he will be able to meet us.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI cannot accept the Amendment, but I can give an assurance that I will define the powers of the disablement committees as soon as I can.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.