§ Mr. SHORTIn the course of the afternoon I put questions to the Minister of Pensions in connection with two applications for disability pensions. There are two principles involved in the consideration of these cases. First of all, the applicant has become the victim of a disease following upon service in the Army, which disease has not as a rule made its appearance in the man's system prior to 1057 discharge; and secondly, the applicant, having been medically examined by the Ministry's medical officers, such officers reported that the disease was caused or aggravated or was attributable to war service; and then the Ministry of Pensions steps in itself and says, "We are not willing or prepared to accept the opinion of our own medical officers," opposes the application before the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, to the detriment and loss of pension on the part of the applicant. These two cases upon which I founded my question are typical of many in the country. There is wide-spread dissatisfaction in regard to what I think is the callous brutality of the Ministry in connection with these cases. These ex-service men to whom I have referred are the victims of the dread white scourge of tuberculosis. They were taken into the Army as fit for service. For some years, I have no doubt, they spent their lives in the water-logged trenches of France, among the snow-capped mountains! of Italy or the and deserts of the Far East. The conditions were so trying that, apart from the ordinary incidences of war, their physical capacities and their physical powers have been impaired. Their powers of resistance to disease have been impaired and in many cases totally destroyed. After some period has elapsed they fall victims to tuberculosis and other diseases equally serious. They make application for pensions and are examined— this is the gravamen of my charge, the whole point of my charge—by the medical officers of the Ministry. In both cases the medical officers report that what they are suffering from is attributable to War service. In one case it is 100 per cent. Then the Ministry says: "We cannot accept the opinion of our own medical officers." I want to know, the House will want to know, and the country will want to know, who it is that overrides the opinion of medical men and medical boards when, as in these cases, it is in favour of the men. What lay opinion is it that takes upon itself the authority to override this opinion? If it is not lay opinion—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions shakes his head—is it some medical expert or medical man who have not seen the applicant, who are not conversant with the case, except the incidents placed 1058 upon the paper? Is it these experts who override the opinion of medical men and medical boards who have reported in favour of these applicants? I am told in one case that as the decision is final it cannot be reconsidered, and as a form of consolation, which I regard as an insult to the applicant and to myself, I am reminded that the applicant is in receipt of a disability pension of 60 per cent, because, forsooth, he has lost his leg. As if there is any virtue in that! He is entitled to that pension by statutory authority because his left leg was amputated. These applications have been turned down. In one case, at the very moment when the application was rejected by the appeal tribunal, the applicant was lying in a sanatorium within my own constituency, the victim of this dread scourge.
The time has come when the mountain of sympathy which is talked of in this House should be made a tangible feature in these cases. We cannot expect that men can be taken to the waterlogged trenches, fighting and living for months and years under the most serious and terrible conditions, and return to civil life without having their physical powers and capacities in some measure impaired. If we admit, as the medical men have admitted, that these diseases are attributable to War service, then we claim generous treatment for these suffering men. Put an end to the universal complaints in the country in connection with these cases. Let the country realise fully its obligations in tangible acts for the services of these men. Let us see if we can do what is just to those who have made the greatest sacrifices to save this country from the enemy. The policy—whether it be economy, or call it what you will—which is now being pursued not merely in these cases, but in many other cases, by the Ministry of Pensions, has not the wholehearted support of the people of this country, and the Ministry should realise more completely its responsibility in these matters.
§ Mr. N. MACLEANI wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Pensions to a case which, he said in answer to a question by me, was under investigation. It is the case of a woman who is in receipt of a pension for the death of her son. Her husband happens to be unemployed just now. This woman has taken a tem- 1059 porary situation to augment the income of the home, which is composed entirely of her pension and her temporary earnings. An investigator, sent no doubt by the Ministry of Pensions, called on this woman and found that she was in receipt of a wage from the temporary situation. He informed the woman that she might be summoned for defrauding the Ministry by not notifying the Ministry that she is in receipt of more money now than when she received the pension. Yet when we ask the Ministry to increase the rate of pensions in certain cases on the ground of increased necessity the Ministry tells us that the increased necessity has arisen only through temporary reasons, such as the unemployment of someone in the family, and he cannot give any consideration to it, unless a permanent need is established and then it will be considered. Here we have the case of a person who is temporarily embarrassed. The wages earned by her bread winner are wiped out and she takes a temporary situation. She is earning nothing like the money that was coming into the house when the pension was granted, and yet the Ministry of Pensions contend that she is defrauding the Ministry.
There is another case in which a woman was sentenced, and I asked if nothing could be done to wipe out the sentence. The woman in question was in the same position as the woman whom I have already mentioned. A need pension was granted to her, but it was not sufficient owing to unemployment, and she got temporary work. The Minister then sent down an investigator. The woman was summoned to the Court. She did not see a lawyer; she got advice from no one. But a detective who visited her advised her to plead guilty, not to the total sum in question, which was only £3, but to a lesser sum, something like £2. The sheriff put the question: "Is she guilty or not guilty?" The woman, on the advice of the detective, pleaded guilty to the lesser sum, and the sheriff's sentence was: "£5 or 14 days, and 14 days to pay the money." That woman came to me after the sentence. I gave her a letter to hand to any detective who called to see her, showing that I was raising the case in this House. I have raised the case here. The reply 1060 I receive is that the woman pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining money from public funds by false pretences, and was convicted by the Court. The false pretences are on the part of the Ministry, and not on the part of the woman. The Minister tells me that he could not interfere with the sentence of the Court, nor could he undertake to evade his duty. If the Ministry will do their duty to these pensioners, these cases will not occur. I suggest to the Minister that he recedes from the position which he has taken up this afternoon, and that he should go into the matter more fully, and give these women at least the satisfaction of knowing that they are not going to be branded as criminals because they have taken temporary employment during the period of receiving a need pension.
§ The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon)I thank the hon. Member who spoke last for having brought up a definite point which can be inquired into, namely, the question of temporary earnings. That was a perfectly legitimate issue, and I am prepared to go into the point he raised. But when he expects me to interfere with the Courts of Justice—Courts which are not under the jurisdiction of this Ministry—I say that the Ministry is not going to interfere as the result of any threats from anyone. With reference to the hon. Member who spoke first, I will endeavour to explain in the short time remaining a very difficult problem— not in individual cases—the question of entitlement and assessment involved. I wish quietly but firmly to protest against the use of the term "callous brutality" with reference to the staff of the Ministry of Pensions. That staff differs from a great many people whom I know in the fact that 97 per cent, of the men concerned served in the War. Some who at all events have not served in the War cheered the statement that these men who served in the War are callous and brutal in dealing with pensions. The hon. Member used an expression which I hope he will feel thoroughly ashamed of when he reads his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
What is this question? The question is one of assessment and entitlement.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODOn a point of Order. I do not think that the question of War-service is under discussion.
Captain HAYAs the one Member who cheered the words "callous brutality,' I wish to state that I also served in the War.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI also cheered it.
§ Major TRYONI am not talking about myself, or alluding to any individual, but I said that of the male staff of the Ministry of Pensions 97 per cent, are ex-service men. It is an insult to ex-service men collectively to suggest that these men are callous and brutal.
§ Major TRYONIf hon. Members do not like my answer—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is entitled to make a personal explanation.
§ Major TRYONI am very anxious to continue this discussion on the lines of the very helpful spirit which was shown by hon. Members opposite in the Debate last night, but I cannot allow without protest references made not to the policy of the Government but to individuals. [Interruption.] Hon. Members, having taken up two-thirds of the time, are now endeavouring to prevent' me stating my case. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] I wish to say this, speaking on the question of tuberculosis. It is suggested that we are hardened or callous, or that there is something wrong in the way in which we are dealing with tuberculosis cases. We are now four years after the War. Hon Members opposite very naturally do not know what is being done. We are now going into cases which are coming up for the first time. In many of these cases the men have never been on our books as sick, and some of them have no claim beyond the fact that they served in the Army and are becoming?sick now. I do not for a moment say that they should not be considered, and we do consider them, but I should like hon. Members to know that at the present moment, on the average, from 20 to 25 cases of tuberculosis, first applications, are being admitted to pension every week. Although the War has been over four years, and the great majority of these 1062 men have been demobilised for nearly three, these 25 eases of tuberculosis represent only part of a group of 250 fresh claims which are being admitted every week for various kinds of disability.
May I say to hon. Members, as shortly as I can, that they of course hear of the men who are not satisfied, but they do not know that, while pensions in some cases are being reduced, others are being increased, and of course they do not hear from the men who are being increased. I do not blame them, but they do not know that pensions are being increased in many cases and that the net effect of medical boards—this is an important point which hon. Members would like to add to their information, because we are all concerned in putting this matter right, and many hon. Members would like to help—in the last year all the cases of medical boards, some putting up and some putting down, resulted in a net reduction of 4 per cent, of the assessments over all the cases concerned. About two years ago the reduction used to be G per cent. So that the suggestion that we have adopted a new policy of cutting down at the present moment is not true, because the rate of reduction is much less now than it was two years ago, and that is one of the arguments which we put in the last House of Commons, and we were fortified by that argument in persuading the last House of Commons unanimously to pass a Bill giving us increased powers to grant final awards. We are pushing on with those final awards now.
During the short time I have been in office, we have sent out orders to push the matter on still more rapidly. It is the real way to meet the difficulty of which my hon. Friend complains. Complaint is made about the medical boards. We are doing all we can to grant final awards and so got the men away. One difficulty of the medical boards is that there are cases where you cannot yet grant final awards for the very good reason that some of these men are getting worse. It has been suggested from one side of the House—I do not wish to put the case against any side of the House—that we ought to have no medical boards at all. How in the world are you going to deal with these 250 fresh awards every week if you do not have medical boards? I would point out, solely on the question of assessment and entitlement, that is the first duty of a medical board to ascertain 1063 the extent to which the man is disabled. That percentage having been measured, the case must necessarily be reviewed by the Ministry before entitlement can be granted. Having ascertained the man's service, his previous military history, and whether or not there is some fault against him, or some defect before the War, you must examine the case apart from the medical board before you can grant en- 1064 titlement. I am sorry not to have had longer to reply, but it was out of a desire to give both hon. Members a chance that I refrained from intervening sooner.
§ It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.