§ 30 Mr. N. CHAMBERLAINasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether, in the Staffordshire district of the Civil Liabilities Department, there were only four new applications last week; whether these could have been dealt with by the War Pensions committees at Stafford and Stoke as easily and promptly as by the Civil Liabilities Department;
(2) whether his attention has been called to a statement made publicly by the late Civil Liabilities Commissioner for the Midland district that the continued existence of the Civil Liabilities Department is nothing short of a public scandal; whether three districts which were recently managed with a staff of one male and three female clerks, with one office only, are now worked by two men at £500 a year each, with six assistants at £250 a year each; and whether it is intended to open new offices in various towns, such as Coventry, Stafford, and Worcester, presumably with clerical staffs in attendance?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAAs the answer is necessarily a long one, I shall be much 426 obliged if my hon. Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ The following is the answer referred to:—
§ In view of the detailed criticism of the administration of the Civil Liabilities Department which has been contributed to the Press by the late Commissioner for the Birmingham and surrounding areas, I think it is desirable to deal not merely with the points raised in the questions which have been put down by my hon. Friend, but with the charges in general.
§ It is alleged by the late Commissioner in question, Mr. Marshall Freeman, that the Department ought to have come to an end last Christmas, as the work had practically ceased. As to this, it is sufficient to say that at 20th December, after the headquarters of the Department had been re-organised, there were 32,947 cases in hand, of which 11,900 were with Commissioners in the country awaiting settlement, and, in addition, cases were coming in at the rate of, approximately, 5,000 per week. It is true that this number was very much less than the number when the re-organisation took place. But it must be remembered that in the cases then in hand—in the neighbourhood of 70,000—at least 50 per cent. were in the nature of accumulated arrears. It is accordingly true to say that at the date mentioned the work was not declining, and indeed showed, if anything, a tendency to increase.
§ It is further suggested that when the decentralisation scheme came into force on 1st June the work was at an end. As to this, the facts are that at the date in question the number of cases in hand was 17,309.
§ The facts with regard to the Birmingham area are as follows:—
| Cases in hand 27th December | … | 659 |
| Cases in hand 1st June | … | 316 |
§ It may be noticed in passing that when an inspection was made of the Birmingham Office on the 21st February, it was found that there were 710 cases in hand, of which 334 had been in the office for over two months.
§ As regards the statement made in Question No. 30, it is true that for the week ending 19th June there were only four new applications in the Staffordshire 427 Sub-district, but there were also 33 other cases forwarded from headquarters for further consideration during that week and the preceding week. There were also 98 other cases in hand when the work was transferred to the new Examining Commissioner. Of these 98, I may fairly assume that at least half were still outstanding at the close of the week in question. As regards the suggestion in Question No. 30 that the four cases there mentioned—representing as they do, and as I have just shown, a comparatively small part of the work of the Sub-district—could have been dealt with by the War Pensions Committees at Stafford and Stoke, that is not so. The four cases in question were those of able-bodied ex-service men, a class of case with which the War Pensions Committee have never dealt. The same is true of all the cases which I have dealt with as coming under the Staffordshire Sub-district.
§ These facts, I think, dispose of the allegation that the work is at an end, and that the continued existence of the Department is a public scandal.
§ I come now to the suggestion that the re-organisation was unnecessary, ineffective, and extravagant. With regard to the necessity of the re-organisation, it is stated by Mr. Marshall Freeman that the Department was satisfactory till August, 1919, but thereafter, owing to change in the control, it became unsatisfactory. The fact, however, is that the change in control did not take place till November, 1919, and that at the date of the change arrears had accumulated which were in the neighbourhood of 70,000. The reasons for this state of affairs have been explained to the House of Commons at other times, and it is not necessary again to traverse the ground.
§ As to the suggestion that the re-organisation was ineffective, the facts are that the Department are now dealing with current applications and are keeping up to date. In order to achieve this end, it was necessary to substitute for the part-time Commissioners whole-time officers, whose services would be at the complete disposal of the Department. The original Commissioners, of whom Mr. Marshall Freeman was one, were on a part-time basis. The full-time newly appointed men were all ex-service men, and were 428 appointed solely on merits. These men had had several months of practical experience in the Department as examining officers. By sending them into the country, time and expense were saved in dealing with applications, and the unnecessary duplication of examination of applications by Commissioners in the provinces and examining officers at head quarters, which had obtained, was avoided.
§ As to the suggestion that the new scheme is extravagant, the facts are that for the month of October the salary bill was £9,076 18s. 7d.; for the month of April, £10,368 11s. 9d. The increase is, to a large extent, accounted for by the substantial recent War increases granted by the Treasury to the clerical staff.
§ So far as Mr. Marshall Freeman's own office is concerned, the facts are that Mr. Freeman was treated as in charge of the areas of Birmingham, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire. So far from its being the fact that he was only assisted by a staff of one male and three female clerks, he was assisted during 1919 by two Commissioners at £350 per annum, plus subsistence, and had the part-time assistance at various periods of 13 Assistant Commissioners, the expense of the office for the year being, roughly, £2,130. On the other hand, the statements with regard to the new organisation are equally misleading. The new area, consisting of Birmingham, Worcester, and Warwick, has one Commissioner at £500 per annum, and three investigating officers at £250 per annum. The investigators are stationed at Birmingham, and no branch offices are being opened. This disposes of the final suggestion in Question No. 31.
§ The Staffordshire district has been incorporated with Chester, and has a Commissioner and two Investigating Officers, corresponding to a Commissioner helped by Assistant Commissioners under the old scheme. The total expenditure on the scheme is roughly £2,000, representing a small saving.
§ I have dealt with this matter at length because of the publicity which has been given to the charges. I am confident that my hon. Friend will realise that so far from the attack being justified, it helps to throw into relief the great advance which has been made as a result of reorganisation. And whilst I am most 429 anxious in every direction to secure prudent economies in the administration of the Department for which I am responsible, I hope my hon. Friend and the House generally will support me in the appeal I make that the last thing in which we should be niggardly is the machinery which enables us to deal promptly and effectively with the needs of the ex-service man. My hon. Friend does not need to be told by me that great hardship is bound to be inflicted upon persons to whom we are all under a deep obligation if departmental administration in respect of their needs is not thoroughly efficient.
§ 33. Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour how many commissioners, and how many investigators and assistant commissioners, are employed in the Civil Liabilities Department; what is their pay; and what is the salary of the Controller?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThirty-four commissioners are at present employed in the Civil Liabilities Department at a salary of £500 per annum each, and there are 51 investigating officials employed at a salary of £250 per annum each. No assistant commissioners are now employed. The salary of the Controller is £1,000 per annum. The number of the commissioners under the old scheme was 65, many of whom received 30 guineas per month, plus subsistence allowance, at rates ranging up to £1 per night. In addition there were 25 assistant commissioners employed at a salary of £300 per annum.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYAre there not still great arrears of claims awaiting settlement?
Mr. PALMERHas there not been an amazing increase in the efficiency of this Department during recent months, and are not disgruntled persons discharged from this Department now seeking to stimulate adverse and unfair criticism in this House?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWith regard to the first question, there were great arrears, but I am very glad indeed to find that we have been able to take up current applications, and I think that sufficiently answers the second question without pursuing the matter which my hon. Friend put to me.
§ 34. Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the 430 majority of the staff in the Civil Liabilities Department were employed during the War upon secret service work in the Intelligence Department; and whether their experience would be more valuable to Scotland Yard than in administering the Civil Liabilities Department?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am assured that one official only at present in the employment of the Civil Liabilities Department served during the War in the Secret Service Department of the War Office, and since has has shown aptitude for his present work, the last part of my hon. Friend's question would not appear to arise.
§ Sir M. DOCKRELLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the methods of his Department in Ireland are so secret as to suggest that some of these gentlemen have been withdrawn from a Department in Scotland Yard? They are so secret that men like myself, who have responsibility for the soldiers, are unaware of what can be done or what funds are at our disposal?