HC Deb 29 November 1922 vol 159 cc847-58
Mr. LAVVSON

I am sorry that I feel called upon to intervene in this Debate, which has been extremely interesting as well as informing, and has been, perhaps, one of the most valuable Debates that have ever taken place in this House on the Housing Question. But I want to raise at this stage a question of the ex-service men who have been put in asylums and who, by order of the Pensions Ministry have been made what is known as "mental paupers." I should not at this stage have raised the question but for the unsatisfactory and unhappy answer of the Minister of Pensions on Monday last. As one who has kept in touch with pensions affairs in this country, I was astounded at the position of the Pensions Ministry on this question. Even, in spite of the fact that I had been very much dissatisfied with its conduct and administration during the past 12 months, I certainly did not expect that any Pensions Ministry would have been guilty of such a decision in reference to the 700 men who are now concerned. Most hon. Members will agree that during the Election, and since that decision, few things have moved this country to such a sense of shame as the decision of the Pensions Ministry in respect of these men

The country has never been satisfied with the treatment of mentally affected ex-service men, even in the ordinary asylums. That you should have had men who had gone through all the horrors of the late War and had been rendered insane, and then had been sent into asylums to what was practically a living death, was bad enough, but that you should have taken a certain proportion of these men and placed them upon the guardians and labelled them as mental paupers, was a thing which filled the country with shame That was well illustrated by expressions of feeling in all quarters of the House on Monday last. It was remarkable evidence of the feeling of the country that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), the Leader of the House in the Government which was responsible for the decision, almost on the first day of the meeting of the new Government asked the present Government to alter that decision. That marked the public indignation very well indeed. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Pensions on his accession to an office of which he has had a wide experience. While he will get criticism from this side of the House, and sometimes heavy criticism, at least it will be criticism which will tend to help him to salvage these wrecks of the War. We all have a common interest in that direction. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his answer, said that there were not 700 of these cases. I do not think it matters whether there are 700 or only 70. The fact remains that the nation feels a sense of shame because of the thing that has happened. But the Minister of Pensions tried to defend the decision. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham asked the Government to treat this as a matter of sympathy, and said that there were only a few cases. The Minister replied that to admit these cases was to open the door wide and to violate the Royal Warrant. He went on to say: I have myself examined some of these cases, and they have been clear cases of men who have been for a long period certified as insane"— Mark what follows, because I do not base the case upon sympathy at all, but on the right of these men to a pension and to consideration, because they were taken into the Army as fit for service— and who having been well at the moment were enlisted by mistake. Supposing it to be the case that these men or a certain proportion of them had been in asylums, and had come out again and were well for the time being. The fact remains that they were taken into the Army, and very often they did not want to go there. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter at all. I was there, and I say they did not want to go.

Captain A. EVANS

I quite agree with the hon. Member.

Mr. LAWSON

Very often the idiocy of some of the authorities drove people of that kind into the Army and compelled them to join against their will. I know men who had been deprived of limbs before the War who were sent for time and time again to be examined. Some most shameful cases of roping men into the Army could be given here to-night. These men were well for the moment and were taken in. The very fact that in many cases the State compelled them to come in, is a reason why they should be considered. I ask the House to face this matter. We all know cases of people who have been in asylums for a time and then have been brought out quite normal again. We all know of cases where such people have been all right and have been good citizens all the rest of their lives. We know perfectly well, however, that if you put these people into conditions which are abnormal, they will return to their former state. That was recognised by the War Office Committee which inquired into shell shock and which discovered, practically, that shell shock was not shell shock at all. This Committee pointed out that a large number of people who never heard shell firing had been troubled with shell shock. I do not wonder at that. I remember as a man of 34 years of age who had never ridden a horse before, the first time I was put into a riding school at Woolwich. They put me on a mule. It was said: "Join the Army and see life." I saw more life in ten minutes on that occasion than I had seen in all the previous years of my life. When I had finished with that little lot, I am not sure that I had not a species of shell shock. It was clearly demonstrated to this Committee that people were subject to neurotic diseases and what was termed shell shock who had never even been at the War. This is what the Committee stated: With the extension of voluntary enlistment, and, afterwards, the introduction of conscription, it was discovered that nervous disorders, neurosis and hysteria, which had appeared in a small degree in the Regular Army, were becoming astoundingly numerous from causes other than, shock caused by the bursting of high explosives. It was observed, in fact, that these were perpetually recurring, although the patients had not suffered from commotional disturbance of the nervous system caused by the bursting of shells. It became apparent that numerous case*; of shell shock wore coming under the notice of the medical authorities, where the evidence indicated that the patients had not even been within hearing of shell bursts On the other hand it became abundantly plain to the medical profession that in very many cases the change from civil life, brought about by enlistment and physical training, was sufficient to cause neurasthenic and hysteric symptoms. You take a normal man from civil life into the ordinary routine of the Army, especially under War-time conditions. They were very strong-nerved men who could hear the voice of some of the sergeant-majors—who had to thank God they were made sergeant-majors because of their voices—and not he troubled with neurasthenia. I want to make that point quite clear, that normal men, according to this Government Committee, were subject to neurasthenia and various forms of hysteria by the very fact that they were taken into the Army and subjected to Army conditions, and who that has served in the ranks does not know that that was true? Take an average man from civil life, let him be as strong as you like, it is a new experience. The right hon. Gentleman says that these cases were examined by the medical boards.

I am not going to criticise the medical boards here to-night, though I shall take an opportunity later on of saying something about these medical boards, as I have before, but how could the medical boards deal with cases like these? The whole thing is absurd. They could not give a decision upon this matter unless the men could tell them exactly the conditions under which they had to exist. The men themselves, if a true judgment has to be given, ought to give evidence, 'but these men are not in a mental condition to do it, and so it seems to me that the medical boards themselves were not by any means in a position to deal with these cases.

I feel that this decision is one that is the result of, shall I call it, the mechanical administration which became characteristic of the Pensions Ministry during the past 12 months. I am not going to leave it even at that point. I think the Pensions Ministry rather robbed itself of that experience and that sympathy which were extremely valuable to it in this work when it broke away from the local committees, but I do not wish to pursue that question. I want to say that it was impossible for the medical boards to arrive at a true decision concerning these men. If it be true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, even if you take the extreme cases, that they were mentally affected, that then they got well, end that then they were taken into the Army, both common experience and the experience of the Government's own Committee ought to prompt him, at any rate, to say that no medical board, and no man, could give a decision in cases of thi6 nature, adverse to the men. I want to fortify myself also by the position taken up by this House in support of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. I think we ought not to run any danger of making a mistake in this matter. I do not believe that there is a single hon. Member in this House who dare go to his constituents and say that he has voted in any Division in favour of the confirmation of this Order of the Ministry of Pensions. I do not think that there is, but I do not want to leave the matter here. We want the Ministry of Pensions to give a different decision, and we want a finer spirit shown. We want to make a general cooperation for the purpose of getting the Pensions Ministry to come to a very definite decision, an early decision, which will give some satisfaction on this question, whatever contests and contentions they may have about other matters.

I want to say, finally, that taking the general mental cases, I think an early opportunity ought to be taken to give expression to a promise that the right hon. Gentleman gave, I think, during the Election—I wish the Election had gone on a little bit longer; we should then have been all right in promises. I understand he gave a promise that he would consider the possibility of getting separate homes and giving special and separate treatment for mental cases of ex-service men. They have a special type of trouble, and I have not the slightest doubt that their special mental diseases would in due time reward those who were using their special skill upon them in special places by recovering from those diseases. In any case, I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to give more attention to that general question, and whatever he does, I hope he will give a satisfactory answer to-night, in order that we may remove a blot upon the nation. I have not said, and I am not going to say, anything about the cost to the boards of guardians. I do not believe the boards of guardians are so much troubled about the cost as they are about the shame of it. I am not going to allow any mercenary matter to enter into it, and I hope the Minister of Pensions will not either, and that he will make a satisfactory statement to-night upon this question.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon)

I should like to take the first opportunity I have of thanking the hon. Member for the way in which he has brought forward his case, and, if I may say so, I am grateful to him for another reason, and it is this. This is a subject on which the whole House feels very deeply, and it is a subject on which it is better that the House should be as fully informed as possible by a Debate, rather than by question and answer, which make it impossible for either those criticising or those defending the Ministry to make the case clear to the House at Question Time. When the hon. Gentleman just now asked me here and now as Pensions Minister at once to give a decision on these particular cases which I hold in my hand—and these men, I must say, are not men who have been overseas; not one of these cases has been overseas—that I should here and now decide as Pensions Minister that they should receive pensions, then I am bound to say I have no power myself to give pensions, but I am absolutely bound by the Warrant which was brought in by a previous Minister—I make no attack on any party; he docs not belong to my own—who decided that these pensions should only run for one year after the termination of the War. Therefore, to make a change legislation is required, the Warrant must be changed, and the whole foundation of entitlement for pensions, which has received the universal support of every party in this House during three different Governments, must be fundamentally changed.

The principle is that we compensate men for disablement due to the War, and the Ministry must not, and I hope never will, be asked to compensate for disablements which are not due to the War. That is the principle which every party has always accepted. If the hon. Member will accept that as the foundation of our policy, I will proceed with the individual cases. The individual cases may be defined as examples of the 700. We do not know how large that number may be, but I am personally going over them myself with every sympathy and with every desire, as far as possible within the powers granted by Parliament, to accept these cases as due to the War. Here are one or two cases. The hon. Member will not think me lacking in appreciation of the kind way he spoke. He alluded to the "horrors of war" as a justification for the extension of benefit to these cases. The "horrors of war" do not apply in the slightest degree to some of the cases that I have here. Here is a case—one of the 700. This man was enlisted as a boy in 1921, after the War had been over for three years, so that the horrors of war seem hardly to apply. He had only been three weeks in the Army when it was found that he had been suffering from fits of excitement and hysteria before enlistment. The hon. Member talked about mistakes. Everyone should admit mistakes after they have been made. They were made. Here is a case of a man who was twice in the asylum before enlistment. He served for two weeks before the mistake was found out. Here is a case of an epileptic. He was examined for admission to the Army by his own doctor, who knew he had fits and he was not allowed into the Army. The man wanted to enlist, and so he went to another doctor who did not know him. At that moment he looked well and strong, and the doctor, not knowing his history, passed him, and he was admitted to the Army. Within a short apace of time he was found out and was discharged from the Army. A case like this is entirely outside the principles of the warrant laid down by the authority of the House, and I believe it was the right principle, and it would be against the decision of this House, and absolutely outside my authority as Pensions Minister, to say that a man who had fits before he went into the Army is to be treated as a case attributable to the War because he happened to be well at the moment he was examined.

If you are going to admit an unlimited number of people of this sort, and of those who have spent a few days in the Army, you are going to break down the pensions system as it was broken down in America, and we shall have innumerable cases who have no just claim. It will also be an injustice to the ex-service men whose pensions may thereby be in jeopardy. The expenditure will be increased, the system will break down, and the deserving ex-service men will suffer. Here is another case—and I am bound to state where things are wrong—of a man who had been three times in the asylum before the War. By a mistake he was admitted into the Army. He was, when found out, turned out. We have no power to grant a pension in such a case. Here is an epileptic case of much the same kind. The man had had epilepsy for years. The case was rather like the other one. He was admitted to the Army for a short time, but did not go overseas, and was discharged from the Army because of an ailment which he had had constantly for years and years before the War.

I should like to put the question of illness before enlistment and the case of aggravation due to War service as clearly and in as friendly a way as possible, particularly to hon. Members opposite. There are many who hold that that is one of the devices of the Pensions Ministry for evading responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I note that some hon. Members think so. It is the exact opposite. When men were admitted to the Army in the lower classifications, and many of them were so admitted—all the men who came into the Army were not A1–they were admitted for light work and special duty. I know the case of a club-footed man who was made worse. In such a case if the man becomes worse, the State admit aggravation. That is the arrangement under which the State accepts the whole liability—not merely the 20 or 30 per cent, by which the man was disabled by the War, but the whole liability—because the disability was made worse by his service. In the same way the State accepts its liability for a man with a weak mind if he was made worse. If that illness has been aggravated by service, he gets the whole pension. It is an acceptance by the State of the whole liability, when admittedly only a portion of that liability is the State's.

May I say why I so profoundly regret that we had to discuss this matter at Question Time and not in a general Debate? These 700 cases are being reviewed—I am going through them myself —and we are considering the whole question to see if we can find any way out in view of the general feeling of the House. Do not let me, by that, give any promise that we have yet found a solution, because under the terms of the Warrant it is not in my power, without legislation, to grant pensions to anybody when the disability is not due to the War. I regret that this matter was discussed at Question Time, because, while we are talking about these 700 men—I give that figure not as an exact statement of numbers, but as an indication of the men to whom I refer—what I really think is dear to the hearts of Members opposite and to the House is the case of the men who have lost their mental balance through the War, such as of men wounded in the head, whose insanity is unquestionably due to the War. These are men whose cases are unlike those about which the whole discussion took place yesterday, namely, cases of men who have been for two or three weeks in the Army in England and one or two of them since the War was over. What does matter is the case of the men in mental hospitals now due to the War.

Mr. LUNN

Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to convey to the House that none of these 700 men served overseas, but that every one of them had been proved to be suffering from imbecility or lunacy before they joined the Army?

Major TRYON

Almost the whole, but not all these men have not been overseas. Where they have been overseas we, as a Ministry, take that as a strong presumption in favour of the men's case. What does matter is the case of those 6,000 men in the mental hospitals. That is a case of extraordinary difficulty. As a Ministry, we have not only the task of paying pensions, but we are responsible for the sick and wounded in the Great War. We are, at this moment, saddled with the responsibility —and I think hon. Members will be astonished at the figure—under which every day throughout the year, on an average, over 100,000 people come up for treatment at the cost of the Ministry. Those are cases of sickness which we admit and knew are due to the War. That is going on now, and of all the cases that we have to care for, and the difficulties that this Ministry has to face, none caused my predecessor in office or is causing myself more anxiety than the problem of the mental instability and neurological patients. Our position is that we put them in hospitals. We have been specially training for this service a large number of medical officers to attend them, because, after the War, there were not enough medical officers to deal with this extraordinarily difficult case of men who had lost their will power. Our policy as a Ministry has been to hold on to these men to the very last moment. Of course, it would not be wise for me to say that we have broken the law, but it is quite true to say that we have gone to the utmost limits without breaking the law in order to keep these men out of the asylum. But when the moment comes that they are certified under the law, then they must pass into the great asylums, because we are not then allowed to keep them in our hospitals. But even when they get into the asylums we treat them, not as pauper patients, but as private patients.

I thank all parties in the House for the valuable aid given by the representatives of every party in the House on the Departmental Committee which dealt with this question, and I also wish to thank the ex-service men who sat on that Committee. This Departmental Committee recommended that we should set apart a separate wing in each asylum for the ex-service men. I wish to point out that if you cut off a wing in those asylums, you get this difficulty. In every asylum these eases have to be variously classified. These are, for instance, men who are very dangerous and some who are quite harmless and still certified. This involves about 10 different separations. If you cut off a wing in these asylums, then you have to reproduce all those separate gradations and separations, and that makes it most difficult to administer.

The new Government, realising the difficulty of this question, made an announcement. It is that they are prepared to go into this question to see if one or two special mental hospitals could be set up for the ex-service men. I know there are difficulties. One is that the relations of these men may prefer to keep their sick near them, and if you put up one or two big central hospitals it would be difficult for the relatives to visit these men. On the other hand, if you have a separate wing for them, it would be difficult to have the separations and gradations I have referred to. I have discussed this question with the members of the British Legion, and we have again found that it is a case of extreme difficulty to deal with. The real problem is not the one which came up at Question Time yesterday. Our difficulty is the problem of the 6,000 men in the asylums for whom this Ministry has accepted responsibility.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

    c858
  1. ADJOURNMENT. 13 words
Forward to