WAR PENSIONS ACTS.

HC Deb 13 March 1923 vol 161 cc1447-520

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Regulations, dated the 23rd day of January, 1923, made by the Minister of Pensions under The War Pensions Act, 1921, entitled the War Pensions Committee (General) Regulations, 1923, be annulled. This is apparently the only way we can protest against Regulations of this kind which are submitted in this form by the Ministry of Pensions. I am sorry to keep hon. Members from a well-earned rest but this question is of such imporance that we are forced to register all the practical opposition we can I am hoping that the point of view which is given expression to is one which will not be confined to these benches, because we know full well that in matters which concern and affect ex-Service men the sympathy which ought to be expressed is by no means confined to any particular party in this Chamber. I hope that as long as pension grievances remain to be redressed—and many of them are still in existence—that we shall find all parties in this Chamber willing to co-operate for the common good of the ex-Service men; but, so far as some of us are concerned, the action now taken in this matter is only consistent with the policy which was adopted when the War Pensions Act, 1921, was under review. When the last Act, which gave such vast powers to the Minister of Pensions, was under discussion, fears were expressed that prejudicial Departmental Regulations might be brought forward. My own personal views were expressed on the Third Reading of that Bill, and I claim the indulgence of the House while I make quotations from the observations I then made. I said in 1921— There seems to be at the present moment an inclination in some quarters to make it as difficult as possible for certain classes of ex-Service men to secure their pensions. There seems to be an inclination to sacrifice every consideration to economy. In the same speech, addressing the Minister of Pensions, I said— My only fear is that when this measure becomes operative there may be a tendency to make it more difficult for certain classes of applicants to get the pensions which they desire and deserve. I stand by every word which was then spoken, and I believe the opinion which I then expressed has been more than justified by the current Regulations, which were then brought into operation, and certainly more than justified by the present set of Regulations which the Minister has produced. On the Regulations now before the House, to which we have drawn attention, I have been induced to take this action, because I strongly object to any curtailment of Committee powers, rights or privileges. Success in administration, if there is to be any success at all—and everyone desires it—depends upon complete confidence being established between the local bodies and the central organisation. The system adopted and now developed in this particular set of Regulations seems likely to destroy that general confidence, and certainly this is not going to be to the general good either of the working Committees or of those who ought to be receiving the benefit of their pensions from the department.

I wish it could have been possible—and I hope it still may be ruled so—that on the first clause of Page 2, dealing with Royal Warrants, Orders in Council, Orders or Amendments in Substitution—for a general discussion to take place on the whole question of pensions grants and administration; but I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, to trespass too far into that realm for fear of coining under the rule of your own authority and thus preventing any such general discussion. It should, therefore, be sufficient for the moment to say on this point that I believe that there are strong grounds for immediate reforms being instituted in connection with pensions grants and administration. The first point to which I wish to direct attention is Regulation 6 which provides that a committee shall bold their ordinary meetings on such days and at such hours as they may determine and at such periods and places as may be fixed by or in pursuance et the scheme establishing these committees. As I understand it, each scheme works separately in the particular area in which it is considered. I wonder, therefore, why the next provision has been added— Provided that the time and place of the first meeting of the committee shall be fixed by the Minister. Then there is the proviso— All meetings of the committee should be summoned by the clerk and a special committee shall subject to the approval of the Minister be so summoned on a requisition in writing by the chairman or any five members of the committee. A good purpose would be served if the words subject to the approval of the Minister were deleted from that particular Clause, because the suggestion seems to me to have no other result than the destruction of the confidence which ought to exist between the Committee and the Minister. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head and I am glad to observe that lie has no such intention, but in actual working no other result can accrue from a Regulation of this description. It seems to me that in this clause there is a policy which we can only call in a certain sense derogatory to the pensions committees of this country. I can see no reason for dragooning the committees in this way. I desire that no such authority s that should be exercised over them.

The next Clause to which I wish to refer is Regulation 12. Paragraph 2 makes provision in the case of applicants under the special grants committees Regulations requiring an investigation of the facts relating to the financial position of applicants prior to treatment, and so on. I suggest that the words under the special grants committees regulations should be deleted. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us why these words were inserted. I want to see increased powers given to committees and not limited powers in the sense suggested under this provision. If these words were deleted I am of opinion that a Regulation might be framed which would enable various other matters such as need pensions to come under consideration as well as pre-War dependency. Regulation 13 says: In considering individual cases the Committee should sit in private session. As one who has been a member of a pensions committee, I know that it would be very unwise and injudicious to suggest that all cases should be considered in public session I can appreciate fully that strong objections could be raised to any such suggestion. I do not as a rule agree with permissive regulations or legislation, but I think that in this connection Committees might well be entrusted with the right of using their own discretion as to whether a case should be heard in public or private session, and I believe that a very wise suggestion would be the substitution of "may" instead of "shall" in Clause 13. If this Regulation stands, which compels cases to be heard in private session, there might be some features which, though essentially of a public nature, would have to be kept within closed doors. There has arisen to-day a position in connection with pensions administration which seems to point to the urgent necessity of more ventilation being given to the circumstances of every case, and possibly to their being brought into the light of day.

I come next to Regulation 15. It makes provision that a Committee shall, if necessary, appoint such of its members as it may think fit, not exceeding nine in number, to act as a General Purposes Committee; and a further Clause makes provision that another Sub-Committee may be appointed, six in number, who shall exercise the functions of a Children's Committee. Nine and six are only fifteen, and yet there are twenty-five members of some of these Committees. It seems to interfere with the successful working of the Committees by forcing ten of their number to remain idle practically from the day of their appointment, or, at any rate, if they came to the very infrequent meetings of the full Committee, they can exercise only a measure of ratification of business which has already been discharged by the sub-committees concerned, and which, in every case, will have been found to have secured the full sanction either of the Minister or of his officers in the areas or regions. I am wondering whether this particular proposal is one of the ideas in the minds of the departmental officers in order to exercise a greater measure of economy, thinking that by declining to call into being the full members of the Committee they may save something. If that be the idea, the possible saving is so infinitesimal as to be out of comparison with the good which would result if the whole Committee were entrusted with full responsibility.

Therefore, I suggest that the numbers in this Regulation should be deleted and that the whole of the Members be given an opportunity of serving either on the General Purposes Committee or on the Children's Sub-Committee.

In Regulation 15 there is another provision which says, "Provided that the meetings of the Committee shall be held at such intervals as may be approved by the Minister." I am tempted to ask why it should be necessary to have the Minister's approval. If the Committee cannot be entrusted to carry out the functions which are laid down by the Act of Parliament, it has no right to exist at all. In this Clause it is suggested also that certain members should be co-opted and that they should be voluntary workers.

In my own experience as a voluntary worker, I know there was a time when no provision was made to meet the expenses of those serving as voluntary workers. The least provision that should be made under a Regulation of this description, for voluntary workers who may be called upon to travel long distances to carry out their duties, is for the Minister to arrange, at any rate, for payment of travelling and subsistence allowances. I believe there are still public-spirited men and women willing and capable of working in connection with pensions administration, and it would be a, very wise and gracious provision for the Minister to make. The next Regulation I wish to quote is Regulation 19. It is headed, "Recommendations to the Minister," and it reads as follows: Any recommendation which a committee may desire to make in regard to the administration of war pensions in their area, shall be submitted by way of resolution, through the regional director to the Minister, provided that before making such recommendation the committee shall consult the chief area officer. I believe there is only one just way of dealing with a proposal of that description, and that is to withdraw it immediately. A proposal of this nature seems to show an entire want of confidence in those who are being called upon to discharge important functions in connection with pensions administration, and any body with a shred of independence would not, I feel certain, accept such a provision as a condition of their appointment. Further than that, I believe if it were put into operation, it could not possibly conduce to the smooth working which is so desirable. A few days ago I addressed a question to the Minister on this very point dealing with the interchange of views between one pensions authority and another. The Minister in reply said: While I have no objection to one committee communicating with another on a matter concerning administration of war pensions, I have communicated my opinion to all other committees, that the practice is not the meet effective means of securing attention in a matter which the committee desire to see remedied. If that is not the most effective way, I should esteem it a great privilege if the Minister would indicate what is the effective remedy which he proposes. If he can suggest one, I should be quite willing to empty my letter files of many scores of terribly sad and sordid cases, which up to the present have not secured the assistance they deserve and I should be personally grateful to him.

Regulation 21 makes the provision that a Committee may call for reports regarding an individual case or such other matter as may be relevant to any subject properly before the committee. It goes on to say: Requests for these reports shall be made to the chief area officer, who, if he considers that the circumstances do not justify the request, may represent the facts to the regional director, who shall thereupon decide upon the request. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give some information .as to why the Committees should have to ask for reports from the chief area officer, and I think if the first paragraph of the Regulation were deleted altogether, from the word "Requests" down to the latter word "request" the justice of the case would be met and the Administration could be carried on more effectively.

With regard to the need for establishing local communication and assisting the growth of confidence between the Minister and those whom he is asking to perform this work, I should like to be permitted to quote one case as an illustration, where the necessary and vital contact between the Minister and the local committee seems to have been destroyed, contact which must be continued if Regulations like these are to be brought into operation. I know many other cases could be given, not only by myself, but by practically every Member of this House. The results might be just a little varied, and the decisions might be different, but I believe the essential facts in every instance would be similar to those of the case which I am asking the privilege to quote as an illustration of the need for building up sympathetic contact between the Minister and the local committee.

The case is that of Mrs. Southern, of 40, Gifford Street, Caledonian Road, London. Mrs. Southern is a widow with eight children. She has four children under 14 years of age, who are entirely dependent, and four over 14, three of them working casually and one out of work. Mrs. Southern's husband enlisted in 1914, served in France for two years, from 1918 to 1919 was treated in various hospitals for gastric ulcers, and was discharged unfit for further service owing to gastric ulcers. A full pension for six months was granted, and then he was told he was fit for work. He worked a little casually until 1919, then had treatment at the Royal Free Hospital and an operation for gastric ulcers. In 1920 he was declared unfit for work, and he returned for treatment to the Royal Free Hospital, again for gastric ulcers. On 17th June, 1920, an operation to the nose was performed as part of the treatment which had been prescribed for him, and on 23rd June this unfortunate man died on the operating table. The widow waited for four weeks, and then received a pension of £3 2s 6d. per week for three months. At the end of that period the pension was stopped entirely, and the final appeal was dismissed.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

That is one case out of thousands.

Mr. ROBERTS

This woman has been compelled to seek assistance from the Poor Law, and is now in receipt of 21 weekly, for seven persons, after allowing for the casual earnings of the three children who are sometimes able to work. It seems to me that the point I desire to establish as to the need for contact between the Minister and the local committees is well demonstrated here. Administrative Regulations seem to have been responsible for depriving this poor woman of her pension rights, and I believe that if the broad principle of the pensions settlement and administration could have operated in a case like this, there is not the slightest reason to believe it would not have been granted.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon)

I do not quite understand who would have granted that pension.

Mr. ROBERTS

If the local committee had had greater powers than they now enjoy, they could have influenced the recommendations and would have understood this ease, which understanding cannot come to the purely official mind. That is the observation I desire to make. When Parliament promised justice to the ex-service men and their dependants, I believe everyone in this House and outside regarded it as a sacred pledge, one that no administrative powers or the rights of tribunals ought to be permitted to destroy. I want to say here that, despite all the good work that the Ministry has done—and we know it has accomplished a great deal in this direction—so long as there exists one case like this, which I quoted from the records of thousands of cases, the Ministry can only be said to have failed in the discharge of the duty which it owes, in accordance with the promises made to the men when we asked them to protect the country in its greatest hour of danger.

Regulations like these now under review do not seem to me to be capable of bringing an end to what is, I believe, admitted on all sides to be a most unsatisfactory position in connection with many hundreds of these cases. If these Regulations follow on those which have already been operating, it seems to me they are bound to lead to further chaos in administration, they will force larger numbers of disabled men into periods of misery, both of body and of mind, they will prevent widows from securing justice, and they will deprive the orphans of the fallen soldiers of that subsistence allowance which is their due. It may even cause many more to be added to the list of those unfortunate fellows who have had recourse to poor law assistance and other sheltering institutions by reason of losing their reason owing to war service.

I have, I think, made the points I desire to advance against these Regulations sufficiently clear. We have no desire to stand before the House or to confront the Minister as mere earning critics, or to try and pick holes in the regulations simply to waste his time and our own. We are keenly desirous to render him and his Department all the assistance that lies in our power. We want to see the local committees functioning, as we know they can and might with full power and responsibility behind them, without which their good work is bound to he nullified. We feel we should not be Performing our duty if we did not protest and try to get Amended regulations.

Mr. SPEAKER

Before we proceed, I think I ought to say, for the guidance of the House, that nothing in the nature of a general discussion on pensions is allowable on this Motion. The occasion for that is, of course, on the salary of the Minister. What is open for discussion now is whether these Regulations are properly and wisely made under the Act of 1921.

Mr. LAWSON

I beg to second the Motion.

This memorial has been presented in judicious terms by my hon. Friend. I want to make a complaint against the Minister. We are here to-night discussing Regulations that are going to have a profound effect upon the men whom this country said it would look after. These Regulations are to guide the activities of the local committees, and there are not a dozen Members in the House at the moment who have the Regulations in their possession. If hon. Members could have sat down and read the Regulations under which the local committees are to act. I venture to say that neither on this or the other side of the House would there be any inclination to accept them. I know that under the Act the Minister is instructed to provide a copy of Regulations in the Library. But if one desires to examine the Regulations closely what one has to do is to get the number, and then go to the Stationery Office and purchase a copy. We are discussing these Regulations to-night, because the House became well aware, during the debates on the Bill, that the Act would work such a revolution in the administration of pensions that it was necessary that the conditions of the pensioners should be safeguarded by some means. It was therefore insisted that the Regulations should be laid on the table of the House before coming into force. What did the Act do? It is necessary to understand this in order to appreciate the effect the Regulations are intended to have. The Act takes the power of the employment of various officials out of the hands of the local committee. It completely changed the status of the officers. I am not complaining of that. The Act was in itself a revolution. It reduced the number of local committees from 1,200 to a maximum of 453 and to-day instead of there being 453 there are only 161 committees operating all over the country. We are now discussing the Regulations under which the local committees are operating. It seems to me that if the local committees are to do any useful work they ought to be free to help the Ministry and free to criticise it if necessary. As a matter of fact, during the Debate to which I have referred the late Minister of Pensions said: I have admitted that the local committees are essential to the work of the local officers, and in any case the local committee is a valuable critic of the Ministry and the Government. I think the Minister will admit that there is not very much possibility of the local committees criticising the Ministry or the Government or even efficiently criticising the administration of the officers concerned should these rules operate. Again the right hon. Gentleman himself said during the passage of the Bill: May I, from personal experience, pay e tribute to the great services which the local committees have rendered to the pensioner and to the country. This Ministry was suddenly founded in 1917 with about half a million of people to care for, and now the number has grown to 3½ millions. There was no mechanism and no arrangement in the various areas with which we could keep in touch. We are glad to maintain that valuable personal help which we appreciate so much. This change is not in the direction of a diminution of their advice and help; it is rather a change in the position of their staff. No, it is not a change in the direction of a diminution of their advice. Let us examine it a little closer. The House did not contemplate at all that these local committees should be cribbed, cabined and confined by a regulation of this kind. A handbook issued by the Ministry at that time shows that the Committee actually made rules for their own procedure. I do not know what is wrong about that. If there is anything a Committee ought: to be allowed to do if it is going to help the Ministry and the pensioner, surely it ought to be free to lay down its own regulations and decide its own conditions. But as a matter of fact they are not allowed to do anything of the kind. There is a regulation here which says that they shall not discuss any individual cases in public. Of course, there may be delicate cases which it would not be wise to discuss in public, but surely the right hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that members of these local pension committees are people of some experience in public affairs, and should be credited with sufficient sense and judgment to be able to decide when a case shall be discussed in public and when it should be taken in private. The decision whether a case should be discussed in public or not is not the fundamental thing. The fundamental thing is that when they get a case to discuss in which there has been gross maladministration concerning a man and his dependents the Ministry does not want it to be discussed in public. That has already happened on local committees and is considered to be dangerous.

From beginning to end of these regulations there is a tampering of their freedom of action. The local committee had power to hold special meetings. Now they are only to do so if the Area, Officer agrees. They can call for confidential papers—if the Regional Officer agrees as far as I can see it is only the office boy who is not to interfere with them and the Ministry might just as well lay it down that members of the committee shall consult him about their comings and goings and what they should do. I make this declaration that these Regulations are the final stage in the plot against the pensioner. The Pension Officers were removed out of the jurisdiction of the local people; the number of local Committees has been reduced from 1200 to 161 and no one knows scarcely where they are. At the time I pointed out the one objection to the change that was taking place was that it would keep the local Committee out of touch with the pensioner himself, and that personal touch is after all the real value of any Committee or of any Ministry. What. is the result now? Here is a Regulation 31, which decides to set up voluntary committees to form a link between local committees and the pensioner himself. I had a man at my home on Sunday. His case is a tragedy from our point of view.

We do not meet regional officers; we do not meet area officers. We go home, and hear stories of tragedies. A man came to my home, whose son was dying, and the man did not know where to go and where the local committee was. There used to be a local committee which covered 87,000 cases of people in my area; it now covers 237,000, and nobody knows exactly where it is. Now and then we get a sort of flash in the pan, when there is criticism or something of that sort, and I suppose that is the awkward thing about it. The Minister of Pensions has laid down these Regulations to stop even that. I dare say it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make a good speech in defence of his Regulations. He has made a few good speeches during this Session, but the letters come in next morning, and when hon. Gentlemen who support the right hon. Gentleman read their letters in the morning they are not quite so sure that the defence made was as sufficient as they had thought the night before. We go home to our people and we meet these men and their dependants, over whom the Great War machine has rolled, and left young men who ought to be in the beauty and strength of life worse than old men.

My hon. Friend quoted a case that was the result of not being able to come into contact with the local committee, and we could all quote cases. I could quote cases in which men have said to me "I should not care if I were dead tomorrow if I were only sure that the kiddies and the wife were looked after. They have lost hold of life, and now, at this moment, where there is such complaint coming in on every hand—every hon. Member here knows that that is true—the right hon. Gentleman chooses to put down such Regulations as this which are going to make it impossible for self-respecting men to act upon these Committees. I say to my friends, and to this House, that there is not a man or woman with self-respect and with any experience of public affairs who would sit on a Committee under such Regulations as these. So far as I am concerned, anxious as I am to do justice to, to sympathise with and help ex-Service men, I shall do my best to see that the people who sit upon the Pensions Committees understand the conditions under which they have to act. I think it would be better for this camouflage to be set aside and the whole machinery to be shown for what it is rather than for men and women to give their services and to continue such a state of things as this.

I have not dealt in detail with these Regulations, because my hon. Friend did so. I appeal to the Minister of Pensions and to hon. Members on all sides of the House to use their influence to see that these Regulations are held up. I am convinced that the ultimate result—and that is all we care for—upon the pensioner himself and his dependants will be somewhat disastrous. I want to make one concluding remark. The result of all this is that there is economy in administration. Pensions are £16,000,000 down this year. The axe with which Sir Erie Geddes cleaved his way to the head of the Federation of British Industries is the same weapon which knocked £16,000,000 off the pensioners. I can understand that tile right hon. Gentleman will probably, with the same axe, fight his way into the Cabinet. The House can take this from me, that they will leave behind a heritage of dissatisfaction and a sense of injustice that will not be creditable to this country. We, on this side, and I, at least, do not want to make this a party question. I hope I co-operate with all sides of the House in most questions affecting ex-Service men, and I want the House to use its judgment and to see that these Regulations are held up.

Major TRYON

I will begin by referring the last comment made by the hon. Member, that, if I fight my way into the Cabinet, it will be with an axe applied to the pensioners. That charge is false. It is a pity that the hon. Member should discredit his party and cause by making a charge which he must know to be false.

Mr. LAWSON

I made the statement very deliberately, and I do not hesitate to repeat it

Major TRYON

The hon. Member is prepared to repeat it, whether the charge be true or not. Therefore I leave it at that. He referred to the Geddes Committee. The Geddes Committee suggested economies on pensions, but the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and myself were the two Ministers who resisted the Geddes Committee's proposal. We carried our proposal through in the Cabinet that economy should not be made at the cost of the pensioner, but in the cost of administration. Therefore, I hope the House well know that, although the hon. Member will not withdraw, he knows it is untrue.

Mr. J. JONES

On a point of Order. I should like to know from the Minister the number of ex-service men pensioners who have been discharged from the administration department.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is not a point of Order.

Major TRYON

On the rest of the discussion I find myself much more in agreement with the two hon. Members than they will perhaps believe. One of them alluded to the fact that his pockets are full of pension cases. We want to develop the local committees. We want to develop the areas. There is no worse place to attempt to settle individual cases than the House of Commons, because the House of Commons has not the time. The right thing is for the pensioners to learn more and more to go to the local offices established at the expense of the State for their benefit, that the men should know where they can go, and that they should have more and more the assistance of voluntary workers to help them to their rights. We want to develop the voluntary committees and the voluntary workers.

12. M.

A proposal was put forward two or three nights ago from the Labour Benches, that the proper way to settle pensions questions is to have a small committee consisting of one or two Members and that the Minister of Pensions should settle all doubtful cases himself. That is absolutely impossible. There are 2,500,000 people drawing pensions and allowances of various kinds. If hon. Members wish in any way to help the Ministry, and I am sure they do, they cannot do more to help us and to help themselves than by getting the idea into the minds of the pensioners that the right and proper course is to go to the local area office and to enlist the help of the voluntary workers, rather than write to the local Member of Parliament. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is the pensioner's last chance of justice."] It is not his last chance of justice. The House has decided that his last chance of justice is to go to the tribunals which have been set up. It is not possible that hundreds and thousands of cases should be settled in the House of Commons by debate. It cannot be done. One hon. Member who has been very energetic in the matter tried for three or four days to bring forward a few individual cases. He brought forward seven, and left me three minutes in which to reply. That shows what happens if we try to debate individual cases in this House. The proper thing is what the two hon. Members are standing for, namely to develop the area office as the centre to which everyone wanting a pension can go, instead of going to his Member of Parliament. If he wants help, he should go there, and not to his Member of Parliament. They ought to go to the voluntary workers, of whom we want more. I think that on the points which have been raised perhaps the two hon. Members, though I am not blaming them, are not fully aware of what has been done. We have been drawing up these arrangements with the assistance of a representative of the ex-service men, against whom these speeches constitute a very serious charge, and there is no more loyal man. We have also had the assistance of some of the best voluntary workers, who have been going round and getting in touch, and it is partly on their recommendation that these Regulations have been drawn up. More than that, while the two hon. Members have a legitimate pride that they have brought up the case of the pensioner in the House of Commons, may I say that they are a little late, because some weeks ago I took the advice of the Central Advisory Committee, which has on it ex-service men, voluntary workers, and help of all kinds, as well as Members of every party in this House. I put to them the question, "how are these new areas working?" That was not in consequence of an attack made upon the Ministry, but on the initiative which I took myself of consulting all these gentlemen, who have a great knowledge of the subject, and of asking them what ought we to do and what fault could they find. They put forward various suggestions. One was in regard to the expenses of the voluntary workers, and we are going into that. Another was in regard to the question, which has now, some time afterwards, been raised, of how often these Committees should meet. We have framed these Regulations, after consulting the Committees, but if there are committees who want to meet more frequently, I should be glad to consider suggestions from them, and to consider favourably proposals that they should meet more frequently, because we want their help. I cannot agree that there should be absolutely no limit to the number of occasions when the full committee meets, because I am informed that in some outlying districts the meeting of a committee may cost from £100 to £200 for every meeting, and therefore the suggestion that there should be no limitation on the number of meetings is one which would mean a large public expenditure, no part of which would in any way reach the pensioners. As I have said, however, if they wish to meet more frequently, we shall be very glad favourably to consider it.

I think that perhaps the two hon. Members have been a little hard on the new system. I know that I cannot now debate the general question under the Rules of Order, but it was accepted by all parties in the House. These regulations do not limit what the ex-service men are getting; the powers of these committees are not decided by the regulations, but by the Act, which went through without any one hon. Member in the whole House voting against it, and therefore not only did every Member of the last Parliament take part and acknowledge, by not voting, that he approved of these Acts when they went through, but the powers and duties are laid down on the lines of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, on which there was a representative of the Labour party, who fully agreed.

Mr. ROBERTS

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment I As I have already indicated, when the last Act was passed I deliberately stated that I did raise an objection, and the contention I made then and make now is that the Act would make it very difficult for certain men to get their pension rights. I made that observation deliberately, and I stand by it now as fully justified.

Major TRYON

I understand the hon. Member's quotation, and I cannot grant him his point. The fact remains that the House as a whole, without anyone voting against it, decided that the pensions were to be administered in this way, and these Regulations in no sense limit the issue of money to the pensioner.

Mr. LAWSON

Is it fair to use a statement like that, when the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that I myself criticised the Act very adversely? I move its rejection, and it was only on the appeal for unity that I did not carry it to a Division.

Major TRYON

I should have thought that whether the hon. Member voted for the Bill or not was his responsibility.

Mr. GRIFFITHS

We shall not forget it

Major TRYON

Nor shall I.

Mr. SPEAKER

As I said a little while ago, the merits of the Act are not now open to discussion. It is an Act, and the only question is whether these are Regulations properly made under the Act.

Major TRYON

I will endeavour only to touch on it in this way, that criticism against these Regulations that they limit the chance of a man getting a pension and limit the control of the money is not accurate, because these Regulations do not limit the control of money. That was done under the Act, which we cannot discuss. On the question of expense, we are carefully considering more frequent meetings of the Committees. After all, it is not the main Committee that is needed for constant meetings. There are the two Sub-Committees, one dealing with general purposes and the other with children, which can meet more frequently and which are less numerous. What we want is a very large and increasing number of voluntary workers throughout the country, and we have with that object started groups of voluntary workers in the outlying districts so as to keep the pensioner in touch with them and with his rights. Therefore the position is really this, that, if this Motion be carried, every object for which the hon. Member has spoken will be defeated. The work will go on, but if the Motion be carried, it will mean that the whole of the setting up of these voluntary committees will be stopped and the whole of the new area system will be deprived of the advantages of the voluntary committee. When the hon. Member said no one would be willing to serve under such conditions, he was not doing a good service to the pensioners. What is wanted is that more people should come forward from every direction.

Mr. LAWSON

If the Motion is carried and the Order is cancelled, is it within your province to introduce an amended Order straight away?

Major TRYON

The difficulty would be that the whole of the Regulations would fall to the ground, and there would be no means of proceeding with the committees. What we want, is to get more voluntary workers. While the hon. Member may say he is not willing, or suggests that people would not be willing to serve under the new conditions because they would not be acceptable to him, I am glad to say people are coming in very well. The whole of the, committees were practically formed in Scotland long ago, and it is only in some parts of the country which were begun quite late that we have not till recently completed the work. These Regulations do not limit anything that the ex-servicemen may get. They are simply carrying out the Act. If they do not pass it will cause difficulties and delay the work of the Ministry, and it will do nothing whatever for the benefit of the ex-servicemen.

Mr. LANSBURY

The right hon. Gentleman has warned us that if these Regulations are not passed the work of the Ministry and the committees which are now set up will be hampered. It may be that we should have to wait for another 21 days or perhaps a month, but there is nothing to prevent him, if the House decided that these new Regulations were not what we want, immediately setting to work to draft Regulations which the House would accept. It is rather a tall order for the Minister on an occasion like this to put a pistol to our heads and say, "You must accept these, or I shall brand you in the country as hindering the work of administering War pensions." The Pensions Minister says that when the Geddes axe was brought forward he and the late Minister of Pensions opposed the reductions, and that he went to work to cut down the cost of administration in order to save the pensions. He has been very unsuccessful so far as saving the pensions is concerned. I object to these Regulations mainly because I think they will go on to develop a sort of system whereby it will be more difficult for the pensioner or the claimant to a pension to get at the local people. What I do not understand is that the Minister of Pensions should stand up and make the kind of speech he has made to-night, and that I have heard him make on half-a-dozen occasions when his Department has been criticised. I took part in the work of the first War Pensions Committee before the, official War Pensions Committee was set up. Suddenly the new Ministry of Pensions sweeps down and practically wipes them all out of existence, and whereas we had a Committee dealing with a population of about 80,000, we have now a Committee dealing with 500,000. Five Parliamentary Divisions have been rolled into one, and now the applicants have to walk miles to get near the people who, the Minister says, are to help them to get their pensions. To me it is a mystery that one who speaks so frankly on this subject should make a statement such as we have heard to-night.

The right hon. Gentleman says people are coming forward to join the Committees. I wonder whether his Department has kept from him the fact that the new Committee for the Tower Hamlets has for a month or five weeks past been vainly endeavouring to get at the Minister to tell him they cannot carry on their work under the conditions laid down. So far from these new Regulations keeping on the lines laid down, they should restore to the Committees very much of the power that has been taken from them. The Minister is always boasting of what the ex-Service man has done, and how the ex-Service man approves of what he does. I have to tell him that I am here by the votes of a very large mass of ex-Service men, and every day ex-Service men and their dependents call at my home. I live in this Division, and simply because the Committee has been wiped out I am bothered every day. If you are to amend the Regulations it should be along the lines of restoring to the Committees powers they formerly possessed.

I do not understand a Minister being so ignorant of the work of his Department. The Minister laughs; if he comes to the East End of London I will give him proof of what I am saying. Hon. and right Hon. Members opposite are continually saying this is not a party question. We have not made it a party question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] The British Legion came to me when I was a candidate and asked me certain questions. I answered these questions, and I am doing my best in this House to live up to the answers I gave them. That is why I am opposing these proposed Regulations, and want others of a different character.

Though I always give everybody to whom I am opposed credit for as good intentions as I hope they give me credit, I have never had anything which I said so misrepresented as I have been by the Minister. I never proposed that a Committee of this House should review the whole of the cases. I said distinctly that the hard cases which the Appeal Tribunals had not settled and could not settle and which came to us should be dealt with by this House. I stick to that. Under these Regulations you might have made provision somewhere for the very hard cases which the right hon. Gentleman admits exists in tens of thousands. You need not go out of London to get numberless cases of men and women who cannot get what they think they are entitled to. But the Minister has no right to twist that proposition of mine, and to say that there are millions of cases for which that silly man opposite proposes a committee of this House. You have done your level best to abolish the local committees. You have given a sample of it in the Tower Hamlets where you have amalgamated five, and these regulations instead of perpetuating the new system should have abolished it. I am a little tired of hearing the Minister rebuke us and say that the whole House passed the Act, under which pensions are being administered. Surely it is possible even for this House to have made a mistake. If in the working of the Act you find that things do not go as smoothly as you think they ought, we have common sense enough to say "let us review them." I challenge any member to say that this Act and these regulations are working smoothly and if it were in order to do so, I could give dozens of cases in my own constituency, of people who are victims of the late war. That being so it is time that we made some other provision under these regulations to deal with cases that have been before the Appeal Tribunals.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is a matter which would require to be dealt with by fresh legislation.

Mr. LANSBURY

I believe that the Minister has in some eases dealt with persons needing assistance after they have been turned down by the Appeal Tribunals. I forget how it was done but at any rate I have heard of persons who through pressure or some kind of driving force have been so dealt with. Whether it is legal or not I do not know.

Mr. STEPHEN

May I submit a point of Order in connection with your ruling, Mr. Speaker? If the Appeal Tribunal has not functioned properly, and decided the case, might we not consider that ease now; might it not become a subject for discussion to-night?

Mr. SPEAKER

No. On these Regulations, we have nothing to do with Appeal Tribunal. That is a matter quite apart from the Regulations. They govern the proceedings of the new area committees, and on them we cannot raise the question of the Appeal Tribunal.

Mr. LANSBURY

My whole objection to the Regulations and to the principle underlying them, is that they aim at superseding the Committees and making the Committees into mere ciphers. I wish to point to one result of the work of the Ministry in dealing with the Committees and making them cover larger areas. In my own district, the numbers dealt with now are 50 per cent. less than previously. The taking away of power from the local committees, the taking of power away from the localities and the enlargement of the committees, has for some reason or other, had this result: that we people in Poplar have most of these cases rejected by the Ministry thrown on to the Poor Law and have been obliged to treat these men as paupers. The Minister and his Department have got to answer that criticism and to tell why that has happened. In the old days and under the old Regulations our Committee had power to investigate each case and power to make representations to the Ministry and we believed ourselves to be, as it were, in the capacity of counsel for the applicants in their appeal for what we considered to be justice from the Department. That has all been swept away. The Minister of Pensions has set up regional committees. He boasts about the representative character of those Committees, but here is a regional committee which is responsible for 33,000 people and there is not a single representative on it of the five boroughs of the Tower Hamlets—not a single representative from any one of the districts making up that huge area. How the. Minister can talk about setting up local committees to keep in teach with the pensioners, passes my comprehension. He cannot understand either the distances involved or the areas covered by these committees. If the Minister likes, I will leave him the names and particulars, but I wish to spare him as much as I can, and perhaps the names would not be familiar to him. There is another matter which is definitely connected with the work of the committees and which requires amendment. Here is a letter from the Minister of Pensions dated the 5th March, and sent out to all War Pensions Committees. I think this is the biggest piece of impudence of which the Ministry has been guilty in its relationships with these committees. It has been brought to notice that in certain instances the discussion of individual cases by Sub-Committees appointed under Regulation 15 of the War Pensions Committees General Regulations 1922, has subsequently formed the subject of reports in the Press. It is pointed out that the circumstances of individual eases are of a highly confidential nature, and it has been decided therefore, that when discussing cases, not only War Pensions Committees, but also General Purposes, and Children Sub-Committees shall sit in private session. The minutes of proceedings relating to the discussion of individual cases by War Pensions Committees or Sub-Committees should be placed on a separate sheet which will not ordinarily be circulated to the members, but shall be placed in the Minute Book, and be brought up for confirmation in private session at the next meeting. In every instance in which the Committee or Sub-Committee desire that copies of the entire minutes of proceedings shall be circulated to the members, the separate sheet referred to will be marked Strictly Confidential.' If that were intended to protect the pensioner no one would object, but what the Ministry is after is the prevention of discussion upon cases of the kind which we want to discuss here. At any rate, whether the Minister means that or not, that is the effect of the order. In nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out, of a thousand the person concerned, when denied what he considers to be his rights by the Pensions Ministry, would be very glad to get publicity for his case in the Press. I do not think the Minister has any right to deny such persons the publicity by which alone they can get justice done. There is another respect in which we think these Regulations ought to be amended. Some provision should be made so that when the Appeals Tribunal have decided cases, the men and women concerned should, if the decision has been in their favour, get whatever they are entitled to within a period of say twenty-one days. I understand that under the old Regulations which I think came into operation last August a man in my old area made application—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now raising a question which I said should be raised in Committee of Supply. It has nothing to do with the Motion for the Address which has been moved. These Regulations deal with the constitution and so forth of the Committees, and points of the kind raised by the hon. Member cannot be raised upon them.

Mr. LANSBURY

I wish to ask could not a new condition be inserted enabling Committees to take steps so that within a certain period a man who has won his case at the Appeals Tribunal could get that to which he was entitled?

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not think that could be done at all. It is quite outside the purpose for which these Regulations have been framed under the Act.

Mr. LANSBURY

That only proves how extremely difficult it is to bring the Ministry of Pensions to book on these matters. It shows too, the uselessness of the committees in any circumstances. I will, however, take another opportunity, somehow or other, of raising the cases which I had desired to raise to-night. There is another matter which comes within the scope of these Regulations or at least I think it does. The Committees have no access to what are called the case papers. The Minister will not deny that statement. What these Committees exist for, I do not know. One would imagine that papers referring to the very case being dealt with by the Committee would be at the disposal of the Committee, but they are not. I have seen both the chairman, and the secretary of the Stepney and Poplar Committee to-night, and they inform me that the case papers of the cases which they are supposed to deal with, and any information which they need in regard to those cases are never available.

I take it that we might have a Regulation made in this new series stating that the case papers should be at the disposal of the Committees. I do not see how they can do the work at all and consequently the Minister, it seems to me, is doing exactly what the Seconder of the Motion said, preparing the way for getting rid of the Committees altogether. Already, under these Regulations, a person dependent on a soldier who has died or a disabled man is now shoved on to the Inland Revenue officers the same as an old age pensioner and treated in exactly the same way. The pensions and allowances are reduced.

Mr. SPEAKER

The Committee of Supply on the Estimates of the Pensions Ministry is the proper occasion on which to raise these matters. We must on these addresses to the Crown raise only matters which are in order in so far as they are in pursuance of the Statute. The discussion must follow on these lines.

Mr. LANSBURY

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I must bow to your decision, but the administration of any law is as important as the law itself. The Minister and his Department are deliberately, or rather not deliberately, but ignorantly or wilfully getting round the Act of Parliament. I do not believe that this House and the men who blame the Royal Warrant—

Mr. SPEAKER

This has nothing to do with the Royal Warrant. The pensions under the Royal Warrant must be discussed in Committee of Supply, and not now.

Mr. LANSBURY

This morning as I left my house a woman whose case I have put before the Minister, the widow of a man who was in a good position before the war, and who has been broken through the war, came to me. That woman has eight children to keep, and this country will not give her a single farthing except under the Poor Law, owing to the manner in which the Minister frames the Regulations to administer the Royal Warrant. I am protesting against these rules and regulations, which are wilfully or ignorantly designed to take away from people like these what I believe Parliament and the country wants them to have. It is because I believe this that I think these new Regulations ought to be put on entirely different lines, so that people will not have to come to members of Parliament to state their cases.

Major TRYON

May I ask whether it is not the case that we are bound by the Act, and that it would be impossible to issue such new Regulations without an Act of Parliament?

Mr. LANSBURY

Then let us give up the cant that we are going to give pensions to ex-service men. Let us give up the cant and humbug that we care for the ex-service man. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER rose—

Mr. LANSBURY

You never have taken any heed of them. I want to say to the Minister of Pensions is that he is a Minister of Death. You are betraying the widows, and you are betraying the men who sacrificed everything to keep the possessing classes in power in this country. You stood at that box and told people—

Mr. SPEAKER

Order, Order !

Mr. LANSBURY

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be put down. That man stands there, and says he wants to do justice to those ex-service men. His Department does not do justice to them. We have two thousand of them in our division. You told them they should never go on the poor law. Your Department and regulations are driving them to the poor law, and it is a disgrace to Britain and to everyone of you that it should happen.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member will please remember to face me when he is speaking. Had he done so, he would have seen that I was standing. I have beer doing my best to point out to him that he must take the proper occasion on which to make his statement on these questions.

Mr. LANSBURY

We never get the proper occasion.

Major TRYON

I am an ex-service man myself. I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER

This has nothing to do with the Question before the House.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

I listened very carefully to the defence that the Minister tried to put up for these regulations, and I never heard a poorer defence in my life. He tried to point out that these Regulations were going to be of some assistance to the ex-service man. My opinion is that these Regulations are there simply to override the Act of Parliament The object oil the Act was to make it easier for the ex-servicemen to get into touch with people whom they knew in order to try to get justice. The object of the Regulations is to make it impossible for these men to get into touch with the local pensions committees, and these committees have no power whatever. The power to-day is in the hands of the regional officer and the area officer, and whatever they decide or dictate or recommend to the Minister is carried out with red-tape officialism in London. I will give an illustration, if I may. Last November I brought a case before the Minister of Pensions of a young man dying of tuberculosis. The Minister was sympathetic and said he would take the matter up at once. He sent the case to the officer supervising in South Wales. In a month's time I received a letter from the Minister that the officer had reported, and that he had decided it was impossible to do anything for this man. They could not send him to a sanatorium because the tribunal had decided against his case. He suggested I should do something as Member for the Division to assist the man, to get him into a sanatorium, and the Minister would consider any expense I was put to. But, I do not know whether I should say fortunately or unfortunately, before received his letter the poor fellow had passed away and I had to assist to bury him. If there had been a local Pensions Committee in power at all the Minister would have sent that case to the Local Pensions Committee, who would have understood it and been able to deal with it. But he sent to his officer, received an unfavourable report, and tried to throw the responsibility on one of the members of that district and on the friends upon whom this poor fellow relied.

These Regulations are to try to override the Act. What we want in the local Pensions Committee is to have power so that they would be able to deal fairly and justly with the ex-Service man when he passed forward his case. We get speeches from the Minister and from Members on the other side of the House. I know this for a fact, that some of the Members on the other side of the House, who have sufficient money, have been compelled to employ private secretaries to deal with all the eases of pensions that have been sent forward to them. We on this side of the House have to deal with them every day— 20, 30, 50 pension cases have been sent to us—and we have been reduced as Members of Parliament to the position of ordinary clerks to deal with all the correspondence. The Minister is ready with sympathy, and we get speeches from that side ready with sympathy. We want them to be as swift in action as they are ready in sympathy.

Mr. HOHLER

This is a very important matter. I myself have endeavoured to obtain these Regulations but unfortunately, hitherto without success. I listened attentively to the reasonable speech made by the mover of this Motion I gathered that his complaints were several. They seemed to me very reasonable and I do not think they have been answered. I will pass from the speeches that followed and confine myself to what I considered the very reasonable and modest speech of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. Roberts) who introduced this matter. He made the complaint that, under these Regulations, the local committees are so constituted or have so large an area to deal with that it is not reasonable to expect those who desire to apply to go such distances. This has been confirmed in the speeches of other hon. Members who are supporting this motion. I thought it was the great principle of justice—it certainly should be the great principle of the administration of pensions—to make it easy and convenient for the applicant to make his application. I gathered further that these committees are controlled in their sittings by the Minister of Pensions. I gathered—I may have misunderstood the speech—but I undersood that they can only meet on the sanction of the Minister of Pensions. That seems to me strange and most unreasonable. If I were on a local committee and I thought public attention should be called to a matter or that a pension was being improperly revised, I should think it my duty to call a meeting. I wholly protest that the Minister of Pensions should have the right to control me in the exercise of a function as a meber of a committee. It is not right.

As I understand it, on these local committees, you get men of independence and of every shade of opinion and the whole theory that when these committees were set up and established in a centre that they should be absolutely independent. Otherwise they are not worth having. I cannot for the life of me understand why the meetings should be controlled by the Minister of Pensions.

Then I gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, that he conplained that these Regulations contained a provision that meetings cannot be held in public even if the Chairman thought proper or that it was the general desire of those present. Why on earth not? People do make mistakes, they have strong opinions about these things and it may be that their tribunals make mistakes. Why on earth cannot these things be discussed in public? After all, there is some value in the Press in ventilating complaints. Again, I gathered from these Regulations, that as a member of a Committee—I am assuming I am a member, of course—I am not entitled to call for the papers. Surely these are the record of the case; it is vital for me to know the case with which I am dealing and if a Regulation prevents it there can be no justification for it. I am sorry because of the unpleasantness that has been introduced by the text of the debate, but I confess that, to my mind no satisfactory answer has been given by the Minister of Pensions. Considering that these men are the men who served the country and their widows who have suffered, it is our bounden duty to do everything for them. The one answer the Minister of Pensions made was not an answer at all.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that if we hold up these Regulations we shall in some way injure the pensioner. That is not true. The very fact that they were to be laid in the Library or on the table of this House would give us an opportunity to do this thing we have done. If anyone has discovered flaws in the Regulations we ought to be grateful. To say that this is going to do injury to the pensioner is not true in my judgment, for the very simple reason that if these Relations do that what is against a pensioner, a widow, or an orphan, we are going to perpetuate it if we allow them to pass. It is going to be against him or them for all time. I wish something could be done in the way of reconsideration of these Regulations. Wholly irrespective of what party it comes from, it is our desire only to see that the interests of these men are safeguarded. I have thought it my duty to address the House on this subject, and I should be glad if something could be done—if the Minister could see his way to reconsider these Regulations. It cannot take an immensity of time for the Ministry to see if they cannot meet the point. One of the greatest prerogatives of this country is freedom and that the committe should be free to call for papers whether they are against or for a man. What is there to be kept back? These seem to be petty points if they did not have such serious consequences for those for whom we are speaking.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

The House generally will appreciate the speech which has just been delivered, and it certainly calls for some reply from the Government. It is not only idle, but an insult, to suggest that anyone speaking at this time in the morning from any quarter of the House is doing so with the idea or intention of injuring the pensioners, and no one knows that better than the Minister of Pensions himself. It is one of the unfortunate flaws of our Parliamentary procedure that when everybody is tired and anxious to get home, this is the only possible opportunity of discussing and bringing to the light of day the grievances of thousands of ex-service men. Such a matter can only be taken after eleven o'clock at night, but surely those of us who are responsible for availing ourselves of that, which is the only opportunity, ought not to be told we are doing something to the injury of the pensioners. As a matter of fact, the correspondence of every Member in this House must convince him that the ex-service men feel to-day that there is a deliberate attempt to cheat them out of their rights, and they are justified in that belief for the reason that the psychology, the atmosphere and the consideration that is given to pensioners to-day is entirely different to that which was given them a few years ago. Now, what is shortly the situation? I cannot separate this warrant from the declaration of the General Election. Clear evidence was given in the earliest manifesto made that it was the intention to abolish the Ministry altogether.

Mr. SPEAKER

That is really much too general to the present case. Has the right hon. Gentleman got the Regulations in front of him? If he has, he will see that they are simply in pursuance of the Act, and are Regulations for the meetings of the committees, and so on.

Mr. THOMAS

No one would join issue with your anxiety to give a full debate, and to do justice to the difficulty of every Member, which is that we are dealing with Regulations that must of necessity affect the personal position of individuals. The difficulty in keeping within the limits of debate and order is in showing that these Regulations must by their very application affect particular cases. That is the difficulty of the whole situation. Two illustrations have been given. An hon. Member has clearly pointed out the difficulty which must arise in areas. That is admitted, but no one could attempt to lay down here how many individuals that would affect. There is a whole series of circumstances which surround it and must be taken into consideration. Then there is the question of the tribunals being held in public. Surely one, in order to do justice to this, would have to visualise particular and specific cases. We can imagine a thousand circumstances which would warrant a chairman saying, "Never mind what the Warrant says. I feel this is a case in which I should determine the mater in public." For all these reasons, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will certainly withdraw the suggestion that those, taking part in this debate at this hour of the night are actuated by any other motive but to do justice to the pensioners. There is no answer to some of the complaints made.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I would just like to put a question to the Minister responsible for these Regulations with regard to Clause 33, which reads as follows:

The Committee when so required by the special Grants Committee shall directly, or indirectly through an appropriate sub-committee or group, consider or inquire into any question which involves the worthiness of a widow, a dependant… 1.0 A.M.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is going to be the duty of the suggested committee, and on what evidence, and from whom, are they going to deal with the worthiness, or otherwise, of any widow who happens to be in receipt of a pension After all, the widow ought not to be followed about or hounded about by any officer of the Ministry of Pensions, who is perhaps more concerned in retaining his official office and salary than in promoting the interest of the widow. For that reason I would like to know what is to be regarded by the Ministry as an act likely to warrant or justify any committee withdrawing any widow's pension? I would like to go further. If a pension had been awarded because a widow had lost her husband, is there any act that any woman can commit that would warrant a committee or sub-committee recommending the taking away of her pension? First of all, she has suffered the loss of her husband, who went on active service for the purpose of doing what he conceived to be right in the best interests of his country. She was left at home with her family, and endured more perhaps than many Members of this House have been called upon to endure. After having suffered the loss of her husband, she ought not to be subjected either to the jurisdiction of sub-committees or full committees or to the prying eyes of any member of the staff attached to the Ministry of Pensions. Therefore I want the Minister to state what is likely to be an act which would warrant any committee in recommending the withdrawal of any pension received by a widow. I am putting these questions because I have a case in mind where a pension has actually been withdrawn on an ex parte case, probably arising from anonymous correspondence, when the widow had little or no opportunity of submitting her own case. I hope these cases are not going to be multiplied, for the suffering has been endured.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Charles Craig)

The Regulations which we are considering to-night contain some 34 Clauses, and I should like the Members of the House, who perhaps have not taken the trouble or had occasion to examine them, to understand that the sphere of activity which is covered by these regulations is very much larger than is generally supposed. They deal with such matters as the following. The first two Clauses deal with the actual conduct of the business of the committee—the appointment of a secretary, clerical assistance, and so on. The regulations then proceed to lay down the method by which the work of the committee is to be done; quorums how to vote; how to fill up vacancies what the position which the chief Area Officer is to hold; a matter which has been so frequently referred to, namely, the hearing of individual cases in private; the appointment of sub-committees; of children's committees; of group committees; making rules; giving powers to the committees to make rules for the conduct of business of sub-committees, recommendations made by committees to the Minister, reports, and a very important matter, consideration of complaints by the persons who come before the committee; matters which are referred to the Minister; arrangements for the distribution of supplementary grants; care of children; administration in trust; chief Area Officer's control over payments, voluntary workers, records and where they are to be kept and so on. The House will thus see that the points touched on to-night affect only a very small part of the work which has to be performed by these committees. I submit that on a document covering such a large field the criticisms that have been made really affect only very few points, and I submit that the answer which has been given by my right hon. and gallant Friend to those criticisms has been as full as anybody could expect. The hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler) has summed up the various objections which have been taken to these regulations. The first one was that the areas were too large as constituted under the new Area Committee system. The question of the size of the areas has been met by the appointment of sub-committees, group committees, and voluntary workers; and to say, as one hon. Member said, that the Regulations were a plot against the pensioner is absolutely untrue. Far from that being the ease, the Ministry of Pensions desires that the personal touch between the committees and the voluntary workers and the pensioners should become stronger and more real than it was even under the old system.

I do not know that it is necessary for me to go at any length into the question of group committees and of voluntary workers. The object of these is to fill the place to some extent of the smaller areas which existed under the old system. Where you have a large area sparsely populated, where the distances are too great to expect pensioners to come to the central town, these group committees are set up, which to all intents and purposes have the same powers as the War Pensions Committees. We also are setting up voluntary workers who are to be easily approachable by the pensioner, and who will receive their complaints. In that way I think that the charge that the areas have become too large is one to which the House need not pay too much attention. The next point that that hon. Member made was that the meetings of these Pensions Committees were controlled by the Minister of Pensions. That is true to some extent, but the object that was kept in mind was clearly stated by my right hon. and gallant Friend when he pointed out that in some places the cost of a single meeting of these committees is as much as £200. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is that"?]

Mr. THOMAS

On a point of Order. Are we entitled or not to have a statement repeated by one Minister from another, without the authority of the particular place, so that we can judge of the accuracy of the statement?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is not a point of Order.

Captain CRAIG

I have ascertained that the area referred to is in the North of Scotland.

Mr. STEPHEN

Now we are getting justice for Scotland.

Captain CRAIG

If the hon. Member thinks £200 is too high a figure, I say there arc several areas to which the assembly of the committee would cost as much as £100. I think it is necessary for the Minister to have some control over the meetings of committee. There is no desire on the part of the Minister unduly to restrict the Pensions Committee as to the number of meetings they hold. Objection was taken to individual cases being taken in private. The reason for that is not as stated by Members opposite—that the Ministry have anything to be ashamed of or that it fears any evidence which might be brought to light in these cases. The reason is that many of these cases could not be heard in public. The Committee does not know what the case is to be until it comes before them. There are often contained in these cases facts and allegations which it would not be for the benefit of the pensioner or anybody else that they should come to light, and the balance of justice is all in favour of these cases being heard in private. The next objection taken was that the Committees were not allowed free access to files and papers. Everybody knows that files and documents in Government offices are confidential. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sometimes."] There are many papers which anybody might read but there are also many of a highly confidential nature, and we submit that it is reasonable for the Ministry to retain control of these papers. If the local officers think fit, I understand that the papers can be produced, hut, just as the Minister should have control of the number of meetings of Committee, we say the Minister should have control over these matters too. I submit that, considering the small number of objections that have been raised, it would be wrong of this House to put the Ministry of Pensions to the inconvenience and delay which would undoubtedly ensue if these Regulations were not approved. An hon. Member asked a question with regard to the revocation of widows' pensions. I think the House will agree that there are conditions and circumstances under which the Ministry should have the right to revoke the pension of a widow. For instance, there might be the case of a widow who has a pension while she is living with a man without being married to him. If a woman becomes a drunkard and is obviously spending every penny of her pension in drink, I think it is proper that power should reside in some authority to administer her pension, or, if need be, to deprive her of it.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

As one of the Members of this House who has on several occasions fallen foul of the Pensions Ministry—in good spirit I hope, except that one feels for the ex-Service men—I want to reinforce and endorse the point of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that there is a deep-rooted conviction in the minds of the ex-Service men that the Regulations drawn up are mainly for the purpose of curtailing the powers of the committees and making pensions in the aggregate less possible for them and their dependants. If hon. Members on the other side of the House were as candid as we are, they would confess that these pension cases trouble them the same as they trouble us. I think they ought to do so, if they are not paying mere lip service on platforms. I want to say to the Minister that however good the Regulations may have been they have hopelessly broken down. South Wales is one seething mass of discontent. Take the North Glamorgan area. It extends from Aberdare and Merthyr in the north; Pontypridd is the centre; it goes to the border of Gilfach Goch and Cowbridge in the east, and Caerphilly and Gwaelodygarth on the south—an area each way of at least 16 to 18 miles from the pivotal centre. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions that the group committees have been formed and the sub-committees have also been formed to take some part of the duties that were done heretofore by the old Pension Committee. The complaint now is that the larger committee, if it is to have its own power to meet at its own time, entails a very large amount of cost. But; why in heaven's name make any change at all from the old method? Why not have left the old Committee? It had a very large number of voluntary workers who were not paid any money for their labour—in some cases they were paid their train fares or their travelling expenses.

Our complaint is that the system is altogether out of touch with the people. In my district I have never addressed a single meeting without at least getting anything from 30 to 40 cases of complaints with regard to their treatment. We are asking that no time should be lost, no delay should take place if we are to abate the grievances of these men. There is no reason at all why something

should not be done to bring these group Committees, if they are to operate and function, not having more power. What is the use of having a group Committee meeting at Merthyr, or at Aberdare, or at Treherbert, or at Cambridge, Gilfach Goch, or Caerphilly with no power to decide in the cases that come before them? We have all these places very far distant and it takes them weeks to get in touch with the pivotal centre at Pontypridd. These people feel that they have really just and good cause of complaint, against the Pensions Ministry in this respect and I do appeal that attention should be given to them. There are, as I have already said to this House, scores upon scores of cases where the area officer the regional director, declares that through the Regulations the aggravation has passed away with regard to these men and in all these cases their pensions disappear. They say, having served the country on the day when required, they are not further considered, and there is nothing for them but either to go to the Poor House or apply for Poor Law relief.

Mr. BALDWIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 103.

Division No. 37.]	AYES.	[1.25 a.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ainsworth, Captain Charles	Chapman, Sir S.	Hawke, John Anthony
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin	Clayton, G. C.	Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence	Colfox, Major Wm Phillips	Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)	Hood, Sir Joseph
Barnston, Major Harry	Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Hopkins, John W. W.
Becker, Harry	Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)	Houfton, John Plowright
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Doyle, N. Grattan	Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)	Du Pre, Colonel William Baring	Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Betterton, Henry B.	Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)	Hudson, Capt. A.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Ellis, R. G.	Hume, G. H.
Blundell, F. N.	England, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Hurd, Percy A.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian. N.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.	Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Brass, Captain W.	Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Fraser, Major Sir Keith	Jarrett, G. W. S.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Frece, Sir Walter de	Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)	Furness, G. J.	Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)	Galbraith, J. F. W.	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Bruford, R.	Gould, James C.	Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Bruton, Sir James	Greenwood, William (Stockport)	Lorimer, H. D,
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.	Lort-Williams, J.
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)	Gwynne, Rupert S.	Lumley, L. R.
Butt, Sir Alfred	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Button, H. S.	Hall, Lieut.-Co!. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Manville, Edward
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Halstead, Major D.	Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)	Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Molson, Major John Elsdale	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)	Sutcliffe, T.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C	Roundell, Colonel R. F.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	Ruggles-Brise, Major E.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Morrison-Bill, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Russell, William (Bolton)	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Murchison, C. K.	Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney	Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Nall, Major Joseph	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Titchfield, Marquess of
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)	Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.	Tubbs, S. W.
Paget, T. G.	Sanderson, Sir Frank B.	Wallace, Captain E.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)	Shipwright, Captain D.	Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Pease, William Edwin	Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.	Wise, Frederick
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Singleton, J. E.	Wolmer. Viscount
Peto, Basil E.	Skelton, A. N.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray	Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)	Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Privett, F. J.	Sparkes, H. W.
Raine, W.	Stanley, Lord	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Remer, J. R,	Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth	Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.
Reynolds, W. G. W.	Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
NOES.
Adams, D.	Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)	Potts, John S.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William	Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Ritson, J.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Herriotts, J.	Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Ammon, Charles George	Hill, A.	Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Attlee, C. R.	Hirst, G. H.	Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Barnes, A.	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Royce, William Stapleton.
Batey, Joseph	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Salter, Dr. A.
Bonwick, A.	Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)	Scrymgeour, E.
Bowdler, W. A.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Broad, F. A.	Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)	Shinwell, Emanuel
Bromfield, William	Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)	Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)	Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)	Stephen, Campbell
Buchanan, G.	Kirkwood, D.	Sullivan, J.
Buckle, J.	Lansbury, George	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Burgess, S.	Lawson, John James	Tout, W. J.
Cairns, John	Leach, W.	Wallhead, Richard C.
Cape. Thomas	Lunn, William	Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Charleton, H. C.	McLaren, Andrew	Warne, G. H.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	March, S.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Duncan, C.	Marshall, Sir Arthur H.	Welsh, J. C.
Dunnico, H.	Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)	Westwood, J.
Ede, James Chuter	Maxton, James	Wheatley, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Middleton, G.	White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Fairbairn, R. R.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Whiteley, W.
Foot, Isaac	Muir, John W.	Williams, T (York, Don Valley)
Gosling. Harry	Murnin, H.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)	Nichol, Robert	Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Greenall, T.	O'Grady, Captain James	Wright, W.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Oliver, George Harold
Hall, F. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Paling, W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Parker, H. (Hanley)	Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. Griffiths.
Harbord, Arthur	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Hardie, George D.	Ponsonby, Arthur

Question put accordingly.

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Regulations, dated the 23rd day of January, 1923, made by the Minister of Pensions under the War

Pensions Act, 1921, entitled the War Pensions Committee (General) Regulations, 1923, be annulled."

The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 143.

Division No. 38.]	AYES.	[1.33 a.m.
Adams, D.	Buckle, J.	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William	Burgess, S.	Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Cairns, John	Greenall, T.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Cape, Thomas	Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Ammon, Charles George	Charleton, H. C.	Hall, F. (York, W. R.. Normanton)
Attlee, C. R.	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Barnes, A.	Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Batey, Joseph	Duncan, C.	Harbord, Arthur
Bonwick, A.	Dunnico, H.	Hardie, George D.
Bowdler, W. A.	Ede, James Chuter	Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Broad, F. A.	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Bromfield, William	Fairbairn, R. R.	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Foot, Isaac	Herriotts, J.
Buchanan, G.	Gosling, Harry	Hill, A.
Hirst, G. H.	Murnin, H.	Sullivan, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Nichol, Robert	Tout, W. J.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)	O'Grady, Captain James	Wallhead, Richard C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Oliver, George Harold	Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)	Paling, W.	Warne, G. H.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)	Parker, H. (Hanley)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)	Ponsonby, Arthur	Welsh, J. C.
Kirkwood, D.	Potts, John S.	Westwood, J.
Lansbury, George	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Wheatley. J.
Lawson, John James	Ritson, J.	White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Leach, W.	Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)	Whiteley, W.
Lunn, William	Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Williams, T (York; Don Valley)
McLaren, Andrew	Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Royce, William Stapleton	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
March, S.	Salter, Dr. A.	Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.	Scrymgeour, E.	Wright, W.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)	Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Maxton, James	Shinwell. Emanuel	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Middleton, G.	Smith, T. (Pontefract)	Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. Griffiths.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Stephen, Campbell
Muir, John W.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Fraser, Major Sir Keith	Paget, T. G.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles	Frece, Sir Walter de	Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin	Furness, G. J.	Pease, William Edwin
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence	Gould, James C.	Peto, Basil E.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Greenwood, William (Stockport)	Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.	Privett, F. J.
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague	Gwynne, Rupert S.	Raine, W.
Barnett. Major Richard W.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Remer, J. R.
Barnston, Major Harry	Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Reynolds, W. G. W.
Becker, Harry	Halstead, Major D.	Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)	Hawke, John Anthony	Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Betterton, Henry B.	Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)	Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Ruggles-Brise. Major E.
Blundell, F. N.	Herbert, S. (Scarborough)	Russell, William (Bolton)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Brass, Captain W.	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Hood, Sir Joseph	Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Hopkins, John W. W.	Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)	Houfton, John Plowright	Shipwright, Captain D.
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)	Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)	Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Bruford, R.	Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C, K.	Singleton, J. E.
Bruton, Sir James	Hudson, Capt. A.	Skelton, A. N.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Hume. G. H.	Sparkes, H. W.
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)	Hurd, Percy A.	Stanley, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred	Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)	Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Button, H. S.	Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)	Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Stuart, Lord c. Crichton-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Jarrett, G. W. S.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Chapman, Sir S.	Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel	Sutcliffe, T.
Clayton, G. C.	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Lorimer, H. D.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)	Lort-Williams, J.	Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)	Lumley, L. R.	Titchfield, Marquess of
Curzon, Captain Viscount	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)	Manville, Edward	Tubbs, S. W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.	Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.	Wallace, Captain E.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)	Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)	Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Doyle. N. Grattan	Molson, Major John Elsdale	Wise, Frederick
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Wolmer, Viscount
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Ellis, R. G.	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Yerburgh, R. D. T.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Murchison, C. K.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Nail, Major Joseph	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot	Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Mr. F. ROBERTS

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the provisional Regulations, dated the 2nd day of February, 1923, made by the Minister of Pensions under the War Pensions Act, 1921, entitled the War Pensions (Final Awards) Amendment Regulations, 1923, be annulled. I regret that I feel it necessary still further to detain the House, for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us some explanation as to the framing of the Regulations under this latest Order. The Order points out that the Minister of Pensions, under the Final Awards Amendment Regulations of the War Pensions Act, finds it necessary to certify that in pursuance of Section 2 of the Rules Publications Act, 1893, and on account of urgency, the following Regulation should come into immediate operation, and in pursuance of the powers conferred upon him he forthwith authorises this Provisional Order. No. 1 says that these Regulations may be cited as the War Pensions (Final Awards) Amendment, Regulations, 1923, and shall be read with the War Pensions (Final Awards) Regulations, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 1922. There is a good number of Clauses which propose to delete certain Regulations which are included in the Orders which now operate, and at the end of Regulation I it is proposed to insert A decision of the Minister includes a decision prior to 13th February, 1917, of the Admiralty or the Army Council under any warrant. I wonder whether, taking this into consideration, in conjunction with the original Order, this new proposal will not prejudice the claims of a certain number of men. I should be glad if the Minister can remove that apprehension from my mind. At any rate, it does seem to warrant some explanation as to what is the intention of the Minister in making a, proposal of that description. My other question relates to Section 4, where it says at the end of Regulation 8 (3) insert the following: Provided that where the officer or man has refused to undergo treatment certified to be necessary in his interests regard shall be had to what would have been the probable condition of his disability or his disabilities had he undergone such treatment. On the face of it that would seem a fairly just regulation to make, but the more you analyse it, the more mischievous you see it is likely to prove in its operation. I know from, personal knowledge there have been cases where men have apparently been fully justified in objecting to accept a course of treatment which has been prescribed. On the other hand, there has been a case, say, of a man who has been through a course of treatment in a particular tuberculosis institution, or has been treated for neurasthenia, who finds on subsequent consideration that he has come to the conclusion that, rather than the treatment being to his benefit, it has been entirely to his disadvantage, and the man has exercised his own judgment against that of his advisers. Under this proposal it would seem that if a man who in his own considered opinion, and perhaps on the advice of an independent medical roan, comes to the conclusion that the treatment offered to him under this Clause is not acceptable to him, he is likely to be deprived of his pensions right. That seems to me to be an unwarrantable proposal to make, and rather than seeking to protect the man this Clause would work against his best interests, and deny him the freedom, to which he is entitled. I would like to ask the Minister a further question in this connection. What need has there been demonstrated for a regulation of this description? Has there been any grave abuse of the existing system? Has he sufficient justification by the number of cases brought to his personal knowledge for the proposal which is now made? After all, even if it is disabled ex-service men who are now being considered, they have some rights and privileges which ought to be recognised by this House.

Clause 3 suggests that, in order to bring the provisions of these regulations to the notice of officers and men concerned, to whom a grant of a permanent pension or of .a gratuity or a final weekly allowance has been made, before 19th August, 1921, notice of the right of appeal shall be published in three successive issues of the "British Legion," and in six successive issues of the principal daily or weekly newspapers in London or the, provinces, and suitable notice shall be displayed in the local office of the Ministry. I want to know whether the advertising or circulating in selected places is to be in the same form as these regulations have been circulated among us. If so, those concerned will be much like the members of this House—they will have very little realisation of what is under consideration, and they will find some difficulty in discovering what is meant by the publication of this particular order.

Mr. LAWSON

I beg to second the Motion.

We on this side of the, House are conscious of the fact that the Pensions Minister has no easy task. To-night I have used very strong language, and it may be that I have said something that personally affects the Minister. If so, I am very sorry I used those words. I want to say at the same time that there is a growing conviction among those of us who keep as close as we can in touch with the regulations and warrants that we think there is abundant proof for the statement, and for the belief that sooner or later the whole pensions administration is to be turned into a machine where there is to be no criticism and where men are open to be left on the rocks with their dependants suffering So, if we use strong language here, it is as a result of the regulations which we have before us. Take this amending regulation. My hon. Friend who has moved this Motion and myself have gone over these Amendments with the regulations in our hands; and I challenge any gentleman who is a lawyer in this House or anyone who has had working experience of the committees to understand, without a memorandum of explanation, what the additional effect of Regulation 2 would be. That has to be put into the "British Legion" in three successive numbers and in six successive editions of some newspapers in London? What does it mean to the man whose fate and fortune are affected by the Amendment? I confess that it is almost impossible for me to explain the effect of some of these amending regulations. My hon. friend pointed out Section 4 of Clause 2: At the end of Regulation 8 insert the following: Provided that when the officer or man has refused to undergo treatment certified to be necessary in his interest, regard shall be had to what would have been the probable condition of his disability had he undergone such treatment. I knew a case of a man who was ill, and living under the care of his parents. He was told he would have to go to the hospital. When he went to the hospital he was told there was nothing but an operation for him. It was felt by everybody who knew him that there was nothing for it but that he would die very soon. The man said "I am not going under an operation." The Pensions Ministry did at that time what this regulation intends doing now. They stopped that man's pension. Ultimately it was restored. The man died shortly afterwards, but the opinion of those in close touch with the man was that no operation would have saved him. When a man is so far gone he is the best judge in a matter of that kind. When he was dragging out his days worse than if he was an old man he should not have had the additional pain that his dependants were to be robbed of his pension because he would not undergo an operation. That is the full effect of that particular regulation. I think we ought to ask the Pensions Minister to give us an A.B.C. explanation of what these amended regulations mean. I venture to say that if Members knew what they were being asked to assent to without having the amended regulations in their hands, they would be inclined to lose their tempers as some of us have done this morning.

Major TRYON

I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member who has just addressed the House both as to the complexity of the Regulations, which we try to avoid, and as to the great importance of endeavouring to make them as clear as we can. We are sending out a full circular explaining in popular language to local committees and others what these Regulations mean. When I say in popular language, the House will realise that, being bound by an Act of Parliament, we have to use the technical language of the Act in our Regulations, but we shall try to explain them so that anyone can understand.

On the point of a man refusing an operation, I understand no difficulty would ever be made in regard to pensions in the event of a man exercising the natural right which everybody has to refuse a major operation, but I am told in some cases where a very simple thing would have enabled men to use a hand they would not have a small operation performed. I agree this is a provision which should be used with great care, and I think it should only be applied in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. F. ROBERTS

Who would be the deciding authority in this case?

Major TRYON

It would naturally be a medical opinion; it would be bound to be a medical opinion, but it should not be enforced except in exceptional cases.

Mr. ROBERTS

Would it be a medical opinion given through the Ministry of Pensions?

Major TRYON

Naturally, but we would take other opinions into consideration.

Mr. MARCH

If medical opinion was that, an operation should be performed, what would happen?

Major TRYON

I want to make it clear we do not force operations on people. May I say that these Regulations are only carrying out the general policy of final awards. Hon. Members will remember how much the Ministry has been criticised for continually holding medical boards. It is with the object of avoiding constant medical boards that we are bringing out the Regulations, and if this Motion be carried it would be a vote against the principle of final awards and would be regarded as a great disappointment by ex-service men.

Captain HAY

May I ask, for the sake of information and to keep the House right, do I understand final awards mean pensions for life? Is it not the case that these awards may be for a certain number of weeks and then cease?

Major TRYON

There are of course final awards of all kinds. There may be a final decision that the man is not to get any more. There may be an award that a man is to get a small sum for the loss of a finger, for example, paid out to him for a limited number of weeks. There are also final awards based on assessments of 20 per cent. and upwards which are awards of pension for life.

2.0 A.M.

The points which we are seeking to achieve by these regulations are two. The first point is this. We give rights of appeal on final awards to the pensioners. A lot of final awards have already been made. We were anxious not to flood the Appeal Tribunals with a mass of appeals coming in at the same moment at a greater rate than they could be dealt with. Meanwhile the pensions, of course, will be going on. Therefore we take the awards that have been made for some time in blocks and we bring a certain section of pensions within the scope of appeal, then we bring in other sections and so on, releasing them for appeal in turn, so as not to overcrowd the tribunals. A man has the right of a year in which to appeal. The first of the provisions is therefore to bring within the scope of appeal certain groups of pensions appeals which have been waiting, in order not to overflow and break down the machinery of the tribunal. The second point is simply this. We were taking power—which point has been put forward by the ex-service men—of measuring the assessment not in multiples of 10 per cent. but of 5 per cent., which gives an advantage to the man when he is suffering from two disablements. Therefore, these regulations are merely for carrying out the policy of final awards. If final awards were condemned a number of men who have now got final awards would feel that their pensions were in jeopardy. We desire to push on with them and to put them into the final period settlement and they are being granted at the rate of four thousand a week. We ask the House to support us in pushing on with the final awards which ex-service men of all classes have appealed to the House to grant.

Mr. ADAMSON

There are one or two points that I would like to put to the Minister of Pensions before we dispose of this question. I want to know in Clause 3—the Clause in which the terms of these regulations are to be brought to the notice of officers of the men concerned when a grant of a permanent pension or gratuity of a final weekly allowance or award has been made before August, 1921—whether that covers the case of men who have already had a final award given by the officials of the Ministry who may have been dissatisfied with the final award but had not for some reason or another appealed against it and are outside the prescribed period? Does that mean that their case can be raised under the terms of this alteration of the regulation? I have several cases of that kind, and I believe other Members have had cases of that kind where the man's appeal, if he had waited for more than a year, was refused on the ground that it was outside the prescribed period. The Minister in reply to the criticism of my right hon. Friend the Mover and the Seconder of this Prayer to His Majesty pointed out that if anything was done to hinder the passing of this Amendment to the regulations and thereby held up the granting of a final award it would be a great disappointment to the ex-service men themselves because of the fact that ex-service men were tired of medical boards and of tribunals.

I do not know where the Minister gets his information. But I want to point out that the granting of these final awards is not saving the ex-service men from having to go before the tribunal. I have a number of cases, and have handed them over, where a final award has been made by the officials of the Ministry, and it has meant in the particular instance to which I am referring the cutting down of the pension. The man has been asked to go up for examination with the view of having a final award made in his case. His pension as the result of that examination is cut down from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. When either he or anyone else acting on his behalf applies to the Ministry for the reason for this cutting down of his pension, he is told that this is the final award of the Ministry, and that if he is not satisfied he must go before the Appeal Tribunal. So that in having this final award made it is not saving the ex-service men from all the anxieties of having to face the tribunal. I agree with the Minister that in cases where a man has reached the stage when he is not likely to improve very much that a final award ought to be made, but in making the final award I want to point out to the Minister that he is not removing the anxiety from the ex-service men so far as having to face the Appeal Courts. One other point. I hope the Minister in issuing this memoranda, of which he has spoken, is going to have it issued in far clearer terms than previous regulations, because, as I pointed out to him on the last occasion that I discussed with him a considerable number of these pensions difficulties, there is not 5 per cent. of the ex-service men who are acquainted with the regulations, and it would not matter if they were published 50 times in the British Legion or in the weekly papers unless there is a plain explanation made that can be understood by the man in the street. I hope this is one of the things that will have the serious attention of the Minister. I think that one of the functions of the Minister is to make these matters so plain that the whole of the ex-service men will understand them. I can assure the Minister of Pensions that the members on these benches are no more anxious to have extra work placed upon them, which is placed upon them under existing conditions, than are Members in any part of the House. But such is the position at the moment that, unless something of a drastic nature is done by the Ministry of Pensions, we are going to have a state of revolt existing in this country among ex-service men at a very early date. That is the reason why I am saying to the Minister that I do not know where he gets his information as to what ex-service men feel. If I were to tell the Minister across this floor to-night what even officials of the British Legion say to myself and others about the Ministry of Pensions he would begin to have his doubts as to whether he was in close touch with the feelings of ex-service men.

Major TRYON

I meet them constantly.

Mr. ADAMSON

My reply to the Minister is this: So do I. He must get a different expression of opinion from the one I get. It is only a fortnight since we had this matter discussed in the House, and as a result of that discussion I have had communications from all over the United Kingdom and Ireland. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Ministry knows, they have even been coming from Ireland, and that shows the widespread dissatisfaction which exists.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

The hon. Gentleman is discussing the Ministry of Pensions, and is rather departing from the particular parts of the regulations.

Mr. ADAMSON

I have no intention of discussing the question of the Ministry of Pensions generally. I am trying to show the great need that exists for these regulations being explained and altered in order to remove the widespread dissatisfaction that exists among ex-service men regarding the treatment they are receiving. I can assure you it is not a matter we want to be continually bringing before the Minister of Pensions and this House, but if the state of matters continues to exist, which we have had for some time, we will have no alternative but to continue to bring this before the Ministry and the House, until we get changes made that will bring to these ex-service men the equity and justice to which we think they are entitled.

Mr. PALING

I would like to refer to the paragraph at the bottom of the leaflet, which says: Provided that where an officer or mall has refused to undergo treatment, certified to be necessary in his interests, regard shall be had to the probable condition of his disability, or disabilities, had he undergone such treatment. I view this with alarm. I think this would be putting power into the hands of the pension authority that might be ill-used. I venture to state that most of the Members of this House will always be having cases of hardship or supposed hardship brought to their notice by ex-soldiers of all descriptions in relation to their pensions, and I fear that the majority of these cases will be from soldiers who have been ruled out on the grounds that their disability has not been caused, or has not been exaggerated by the war. Everybody is having scores of these cases brought to his notice. The disability in every case exists. Nobody denies that, but the question comes in as to what it was caused by. In scores and hundreds of these cases the medical fraternity are at absolute variance. I can give cases in my own district where the local doctors who know these men, and have had them under their care for 12 and 20 years, and have even had cases from their boyhood, declare that these disabilities must have been caused by war services, while the medical fraternity responsible under the pension authority have declared otherwise, and I suppose they have the last word. We have here another case in his regulation which appears to be going to the other extreme. There will be no question of the disability, but, the man will be asked to undergo an operation for a certain treatment. Again his doctors and the other doctors may disagree. He will be seen by the other doctors, and they will say it would have had beneficial effects. Again, I suppose, the men under the pension authority will have the last word, and the man, if he does not agree to undergo the operation or treatment, will be liable to have his pension stopped. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Ministry would be very careful in their use of this particular regulation and that it would only apply in very exceptional circumstances. I take it that there will be some circumstances in which it is expected that the Ministry will be able to apply this regulation; otherwise it would not have been pat down here, and interpolated as it has been into the administration of pensions. Anyone who knows these things could bring hundreds of cases in which pensioners feel that they have been harshly dealt with, and our anxiety is not to give further powers into the hands of the Ministry. I am afraid, if this is put into operation, there will be a similar number of complaints of hardship to the people who come under this as there has been regarding those people who come under other regulations. I hope the House will see its way to reject this altogether.

Mr. HARBORD

The Minister of Pensions has said quite clearly that there is a desire on the part of ex-service men to have their pensions finally settled. That may be so in extreme cases in which there is certainty about them. In many of them, however, if there is too ready settlement, grave injustices will be created. This week three cases have come under my knowledge. One of them is a mental case, a man I knew before the war, and there was no insanity in the family. The man suffered from shell shock while serving in France. The final settlement in that case would have been on the terms of 50 per cent. I had the honour of representing that man before one who came down on behalf of the Regional Committee. I can speak of the man from my personal knowledge, and that man has had his disability allowance increased to 100 per cent. I can quite conceive, however, of many men who by long exposure in the service of their country have acquired serious complaints or illnesses which after the time these final settlements are arrived at, may become aggravated, and their conditions become very much worse. In some cases they are compelled to except poor relief, a thing which is quite foreign to what was promised them during the War when every one said that their service and sufferings would be recognised. Unfortunately every one of us, irrespective of party, can say from personal knowledge that much injustice has been done to many deserving cases. I regret more than anything that during the Debate to-night there was a lack of sympathy on the part of the Pensions Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member cannot go back to the earlier Debates.

Mr. HARBORD

I bow to your ruling, but I have noticed what I have said during this Debate, and I am sorry for it. I have some right to speak for ex-service men. I am president of the British Legion of my town, whose members sent me to this House. I am a member of a pensions committee and a member of a regional committee. I am sorry that there should he this failure on the part of the pensions committee to realise the sad state of these men.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

As Mr. Speaker has pointed out, the proper time for criticisms of this kind is on the Vote for the Pensions Ministry The only question before the House now is certain specific changes in the Regulations as to final awards. The Debate is solely with reference to these, and it is not permissible to go beyond that question.

Mr. HARBORD

I am sorry that you rule so tightly in this matter. It does not give me the latitude that I would like. In the circumstances I will adopt your suggestion, and .at a later stage I shall refer to the charges.

Mr. WRIGHT

Unless you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, rule me out of order, I want to bring the attention of the House to a very sad case of an officer, and to read an extract from a letter of his with regard to the very great hardship inflicted upon three men who served under him. I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Pensions, and was treated with very great courtesy. I only briefly refer to it. The writer says: It seems a very sad state of affairs that a disabled officer can be treated as I have been during the time that I was totally incapacitated. It really makes me feel for the men who have told me their tale of woe, about how they have been treated by the Ministry of Pensions. Three men who served under me tell me they were in hospital for months undergoing operations and they had credits one of £23, another of £19 and a third of over £15.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

How does the hon. Member connect these cases with the Regulations?

Mr. WRIGHT

As an instance of many of the hardships suffered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member cannot, on this occasion, quote cases of hardship unless they have a direct bearing on the Regulations.

Mr. WRIGHT

I want to show the necessity for change.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

If the hon. Member can connect his cases with the Regulations. I shall be glad.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

On a point of Order. If the hon. Member can show, by the case he is quoting, that any of these Regulations would bear still more harshly on the unfit, would that not be in order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Yes, that would be in order.

Mr. LANSBURY

Would it not be in order to suggest new Regulations in place of these?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

No.

Mr. WRIGHT

This officer says: These men were turned out of hospital without receiving a penny of their credits and not even a warrant home. I wrote to the regional headquarters about the money and got the following reply which is not true. That is the evidence of an officer who served many years in the Army, and I think it is typical of quite a number, and surely it is obvious that some change is necessary so that men should not be treated in such a harsh manner.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not really in order.

Mr. STEPHEN WALSH

We listened with a certain degree of satisfaction to the statement of the Minister that there were to be published certain simple memoranda to enable ex-service men to understand these amended Regulations, but I think it will be admitted that before the Regulations pass the House Members ought to be given a little more information as to what is their real meaning. For instance, it is said: At the end of Regulation 2 insert the following: The decision of the Minister includes a decision prior to 15th February, 1917, of the Admiralty or of the Army Council under any warrant.' At that time the Pensions Ministry was not established, or at least it was only in a very small and nebulous condition, and the decisions of the Admiralty or the Army Council previous to that date have no relevance to the conditions existing to-day. I remember very well the inception of the Pensions Ministry. Then all parts of the House, irrespective of party, pressed on the Government of the day the necessity of gathering together the tangled skeins and establishing a Ministry. I am not questioning the Regulation itself, but before it passes we have a right to know what is its real effect. That la decision of the Admiralty prior to 15th February, 1917, or of the Army Council under any warrant shall be binding to-day seems extraordinary when the conditions are as far removed as the poles asunder. We have a right to more information upon that point.

But that does not relieve him of the duty of giving us some more information than has yet been given on this point. I would like to refer to Sub-section 4 of Regulation 2, which deals with cases where an officer or man has refused to undergo treatment certified to be necessary in his interest. Many hon. Gentlemen in this House have a good knowledge of the law of Workmen's Compensation. Under that law, no injured workman is compelled to undergo an operation, but medical men o f the highest capacity disagree with each other. When doctors differ who shall decide? Really, there must be a competent authority to whom an ex-soldier may appeal when his may very well be a case in which his own medical man, or the med leaf man in the service of the Ministry, may disagree as to whether such treatment was or was not proper in his case. The condition of ex-service men differs tremendously. It is certainly necessary if possible to amend the Regulations. It is surely desirable that there should be a right of appeal to a final authority, so that that degree of assurance shall be given to the ex-soldier which a workman possesses under Workmen's Compensation law. Regulation 15 (4) says: For final statutory award substitute statutory final award.' In the early Christian Church there was a long-sustained argument as to the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation. Will the Pensions Minister tell a poor unlearned Labour Member the difference between final statutory award and statutory final award? There is another point in Section 3. In my experience, which has not been very great, I have found that where there has been a lapse of time within which an appeal should have been made, this has deprived ex-service men of the right of appeal. It is therefore very desirable that the conditions as to the time under which an appeal can be made should be clarified. May I read the last four lines of Section 3: The appeal shall be published in three successive issues of the 'British Legion,' and in six successive issues of the principal daily or weekly newspapers circulating in London or the provinces. There are two conditions there, or rather two classes of newspapers in which you can publish the notice. In the case of a daily paper the whole period to be brought to the notice of the appellant is a week. The Ministry may say that they had complied with the Section because they bad published in six successive issues of a daily paper, and as from that time the man's right to appeal is exerciseable and within twelve months of that date his right of appeal lapses. The Ministry may publish in six weekly issues, and in that case the period of appeal will be different. There may surely be such a confusion as to baffle the ex-service man, because in one case it is six weeks and in the other six days. I do not know if a great deal hangs upon that, but I think it is a point that should be cleared up.

Captain CRAIG

I propose to clear up a few of the questions put to my right hon. Friend. With regard to the ambiguity in the names of these awards, as to the difference between a statutory final award and a final statutory award, there is no difference. Unfortunately in some old Regulations the expression "statutory final award" was used in some-Clauses, and in another Clause in the same document the expression "final statutory award" was used. It is to cover these two cases that this amendment has been made. In future we will stick to statutory final award.

Mr. BUCHANAN

On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if this phrase mesmerises the hon. Member who has just spoken, is it not used to mislead the ex-soldier?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The mesmerising of any hon. Member is not a point of Order.

Captain CRAIG

The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord), who has just resumed his seat, raised the question of finality of pensions. I would like to remind the House that that question was gone into very fully two years ago, when the Act of 1921 was passed, and it is not open to us to raise it to-night. The Act of 1921 deals directly with the making final of as many pensions as possible, and it is in pursuance of the policy that was laid down in the Act, and agreed to by the House of Commons that these Regulations are framed. Objection has been taken to Clause 2, Sub-clause (4)— the question of a man refusing to undergo treatment certified to be necessary. If the Ministry of Pensions desired to do so, it could inflict very great hardships under that Clause. It has no such desire. If we do not protect ourselves by some such Regulation as this the Ministry and the public are liable to be imposed upon.

Here is a case to illustrate the question. A man had sustained a small injury to his hand which had resulted in the contraction of the muscles of one finger. So long as the muscles were so contracted the whole hand was useless. It was clear that a slight operation to the muscles would remove this and make the man's hand entirely effective.

Mr. THOMAS

Supposing the individual and the medical adviser advised against an operation and the Ministry's medical adviser suggested an operation—the man has more faith in his own private adviser—would not this Regulation, because he did not comply with the Ministry's instructions, prevent a pension?

Captain CRAIG

That is a question which I do not think I can answer. This provision has been put into the Regulations for the protection of the Ministry. I cannot conceive that a man's doctor would advise against such an operation, but if the man's own doctor did so, and if he was a doctor of repute, I am quite sure the Ministry's doctor would take that into consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot conceive the circumstances of a man's private doctor so advising. It is in our every day experience. I deal with thousands of eases; I have had thousands of these cases come into our own organisation where there is a dispute between two medical men. In this case I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a dispute between two medical men—one is conversant with the details of the case and in whom the individual has confidence and he takes the advice against the Ministry's. The answer we get is, we must protect ourselves. What we are doing is to try to protect the man.

Captain CRAIG

It is very difficult, as I think everyone will agree, to give a definite answer to that. I feel convinced that the Ministry's doctor would not operate on a man if the man's own doctor objected. But I would point out to hon. Members opposite there is no finality about the matter, because if the man is dissatisfied with the final award he has received, and if that award was made lower on account of his refusal to be operated on or to be treated, he has the Appeal Tribunal to go to, and if the Tribunal thought the Ministry had acted wrongly in the matter they would raise his pension.

Mr. F. ROBERTS

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Appeal Tribunal would not have to take into consideration this very Regulation which the Ministry wants to accept.?

Captain CRAIG

I do not think the Regulation will bind the Appeal Tribunal in all respects. They take the opinion of the man's own doctor into consideration, if such is available, and also that of the Ministry doctors.

Mr. ROBERTS

I asked, would they not have to take it into consideration?

Captain CRAIG

My right hon. Friend authorises me to say that we would not insist, if the man's doctor said the operation should not take place.

Mr. THOMAS

That is the most important point. What guarantee has this House that the mere statement of a Minister is to be taken against the Regulation. We are here dealing with the Regulations. No one would question that my right hon. Friend would carry out what he has promised. But we all know perfectly well that he may be superseded by someone else, and we are now dealing with the instructions. If that is the intention of the Ministry, why not accept our Amendment to alter the Regulations accordingly?

Captain CRAIG

My answer to that is that the interests of a pensioner are protected by the Appeal Tribunal set up by the House of Commons and I do not believe there is any general objection to it. There is only one other question so far as I can remember that has been raised, that is the question of giving due publicity to these Regulations. My right hon. Friend has said that everything will be done to make them as public as possible, because it is as much to our interest as it is to the pensioner's interest to do so. I think the publicity which is proposed under the amended Regulations will have that effect. But it is also the intention of the Ministry to take every opportunity when issuing forms and so on to frame them as clearly as possible. I think these are the only points to which I was asked to reply.

Mr. WALSH

What is the meaning of the first part of the Regulation?

Captain CRAIG

I admit it is difficult to understand exactly, and as a matter of fact I have had it put down in writing so as to make it as clear as possible. The object is to bring within the scope of the Regulations those awards which were made final by the War Pensions Act, 1921, but a portion of which were deliberately left out of the Regulation of last year in order not to overwhelm the Tribunals of Appeal. The Act of 1921 in Section 4 (4) said that all awards made before the date of the passing of the Act, so far as they were not conditional awards, should be made final and appealable. But it left the Ministry to determine the date or dares as from which they should be appealable. In order not to break the machine and it the interests of disabled ex-service men themselves, the Regulations of last sear were so drawn as to bring immediately within the scope of appeal, only the earlier of these awards, viz.; those made before the 31st March, 1919. This was directly in the interests of disabled men, because it enabled cases, which were excluded from the Regulations to continue to came to the Ministry and get increased pension and allowance if they became worse. The amending Regulations now make these final and appealable for a year as from the 7th February.

Mr. MACLEAN

I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions whether these Regulations apply to Scotland? I desire your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in regard to that. These Regulations are also draft Regulations for the purposes of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, and Section 1 of that Act says— This Section shall not apply to Scotland. I am asking whether these Regulations apply to Scotland, since the Section of the Act says that it shall not apply to Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER

The notice at the head of the White Paper is not part of the Regulations. It is only for the guidance of Members, and does not in any way affect the Regulations.

Mr. MACLEAN

My point is this. The right hon. Gentleman states that they are draft Regulations for the purposes of Section 1. They are brought within the purpose or scope of Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, which states specifically that that Section does not apply to Scotland. If these are brought in for the purposes of Section 1, then these Regulations cannot apply to Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER

As I said before, the hon. Member has quoted from the note at the head of the White Paper, but the Regulations made by the Minister can by themselves apply.

Mr. MACLEAN

While this note is not part of the Regulations, it states that the Regulations are draft Regulations for the purposes of Section 1. It is stated in Section 1 that it shall not apply to Scotland and, therefore, as the purpose here is under Section 1, it follows logically that they cannot apply to Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER

If that were the case, I should think the hon. Gentleman would be rather pleased.

Mr. THOMAS

The question was put as to whether the Regulations did apply to Scotland. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) said to the Minister: "What is your intention with regard to this matter"? and he said: "So far as we are concerned we intend these to apply to Scotland." My hon. Friend now raises a point of Order and you say, Mr. Speaker, that he is probably pleased that they do not.

Mr. SPEAKER

I must not be taken to say that. I am taking the hon. Member's own hypothesis. My ruling is that this note has not a legislative or statutory effect at all.

Mr. MACLEAN

While it has not legislative effect, it refers to an Act which has legislative effect. I am submitting that part of that Section does not apply to Scotland. If this is brought in under the purposes of Section 1, then it cannot apply. I think you will see my point.

Captain CRAIG

These are draft regulations, and these draft regulations have to be made in accordance with the Rules Publication. Act, but when they become Regulations they apply to Scotland and every part of the world in which pensioners live.

Mr. SPEAKER

This is a legal question which does not concern the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Does not that raise the difficulty of discussing at this time in the morning something which is vitally important to thousands of pensioners in this country? Here is a clear admission, and, on a point of order, it is ruled out. It is clearly an important legal point under which the individual may suffer.

Mr. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman put something into my mouth which I did not say. To the question the Minister has given his answer.

Mr. THOMAS

I am not challenging your position, Sir. I am pointing out to the House the difficulty we are experiencing on this point when we are endeavouring to make these Regulations for the ex-service men as satisfactory as possible. We have now a difference of opinion as to the application of these Regulations to Scotland. In view of these difficulties at this time in the morning I beg to move "That the debate be adjourned."

Mr. SPEAKER

I am sorry that I cannot accept the Motion.

Mr. MACLEAN

The hon. and gallant gentleman opposite has stated that these are draft Regulations and that until they become operative, and until passed by this House, they must be brought in under the Act of 1893. He admits bringing them in under that Act, Section I of which governs draft Regulations. I have shown that Section is not operative in Scotland and you, Sir, have stated that that is not a question on which you can rule as a point of order. It is really a point of honour for the Ministry. It is really a legal point, and being a legal point the position that will arise from it in Scotand is that ex-service men ear, if they like, take a case into Court because it has been decided against them under these Regulations.

3.0 A.M.

They can bring a case at law against the Pensions Ministry on the ground that these Regulations are not operative in Scotland.

Captain CRAIG

Has the hon. Member observed the word "also" before the words "draft, Regulations"— These Regulations are also draft Regulations for the purpose of Section 1 of the Rules Publications Act, 1893. That makes all the difference.

Mr. MACLEAN

I am sure I took every word into my mind when reading the Regulations. I am aware it says— These Regulations are also draft Regulations "— but does the hon. Member suggest that, because the word "also" is there, it excludes the Regulations from the operation of Section 1 of the Act of 1893?

Captain CRAIG

They come under it.

Mr. MACLEAN

What is the use of quibbling?

Captain CRAIG

They do two things. They come under these Regulations and, so far as Scotland is concerned, they do not need to come under them and they do not come under them.

Mr. MACLEAN

May I take it that they come under this particular section of the Act so far as it affects England, but so far as it affects Scotland they do not? What Act do they come under?

Captain CRAIG

They do not require to come under any Act.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Send for the Attorney-General.

Mr. MACLEAN

I want to put this point—

Major TYRON

I have not the least doubt that these Regulations do apply to Scotland and England. The word "also" shows that The Minister of Pensions certifies, in pursuance of Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act. There is not the least doubt that this applies, not only to Scotland and England, not only under the 1893 Act, but also under the Act of 1921, which clearly applies to Scotland.

Mr. MACLEAN

The Act of 1921, which applies to England, does not apply to Scotland, and you have been operating it all the time in Scotland.

Major TRYON

The hon. member is entirely mistaken. The Act of 1921 clearly applies to Scotland and to England.

Mr. MACLEAN

In that case the Act of 1921 applies to the whole country, and it is quite unnecessary to refer these Regulations to the Act of 1893. I submit that a point of this nature is exceedingly complicated, as is shown by the fact that two members in charge of the Regulations cannot make the point clear, but contradict each other, and not only contradict each other but tell us at one moment that these Regulations do not require to come under the 1893 Act, and at the next moment tell us they do for one part of the country.

Captain CRAIG

We never said that.

Mr. MACLEAN

The statement was distinctly made from that side that the Act of 1921 specifically applied to Scotland, Wales and England. Yet to-day we find that the Regulations are brought in under a particular Section of the Act of 1893, and you tell us that that is only for England and does not apply to Scotland. That shows that whoever is responsible for the drafting of these Regulations did not know what was intended. I suggest that at this time when there is so much difference of opinion between two Ministers the Debate should be adjourned and I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. SPEAKER

I have already said I cannot accept that Motion.

Captain HAY

It seems a strange thing that at three o'clock in the morning we find a large company of people assembled, each one of whom will tell you separately and individually that he is anxious to confer the largest benefits possible upon the disabled ex-service men, and yet somehow when they come into conclave we find that this power which is so strong and burning in the individual bosom seems to lose all its strength when we get together. Surely it is a strange thing that we have to have Act upon Act and Regulation upon Regulation in order that we may do very simple acts of justice which are still waiting to be done. I would like to add my testimony to what has been said that ex-service men do not want final awards. They may want final pensions, which is a different story, but a final award is chased after by no ex-service man, because he realised that it may be anything from 18 up to 100 weeks at a low percentage, and afterwards he will have no claim on the Minister. I am still not clear as to what the position is after I have had the explanation of the Under-Secretary, and I want again to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 2 of Section 4: At the end of Section B3 insert the following: 'Provided that where the officer or man has refused to undergo treatment certified to be necessary in his interests regard shall be had to what would have been the probable condition of his disability or disabilities had he undergone such treatment.' We know quite well that when ex-service men refuse further operations they do not refuse for a small matter, and when ex-service men refuse further operations it is only after four or five severe operations have either given them no relief or have made their cases worse. It is in these circumstances that we find an ex-service man putting his back up and saying "No more operations" or "No more doctors for me." I wish to ask a categorical question. Am I to understand after having heard the representatives of the Government, and especially after having heard the Under-Secretary explain this paragraph 2, Subsection (4), that the Government say that where an ex-service man upon medical advice refuses further operations and has his assessment thereby lowered and comes before a Court of Appeal, the Government, in making its case against him, will be precluded from bringing in evidence that this man has refused further operations? I understand that that is the state of matters under the pledge of the Under-Secretary, but this is of such vast importance to ex-service men that I raise the point again in the hope that the Pensions Minister will deal with it and let us know clearly what the understanding is on the matter.

I think I voice the sentiments of tens of thousands of ex-service men who will see that these War Pensions Amendments Regulations have been conceived with the one aim. We understand that the saving on pensions for next year is to be something like £10,000,000, and the two things we have discussed to-night are the small Geddes' axes which are to produce that saving. Ex-service men to-morrow will read with horror and disgust that one more sword is to fall again on those who are too weak to defend themselves, and the disabled men of this country form one of those classes. I wish again to put my question categorically to the Government: Are we to understand that where an ex-service man refuses an operation upon the advice of his own medical man that, when his assessment is lowered and he goes before the appeal tribunal, the Government will be precluded from bringing against him the fact that he refused an operation?

Mr. HARDIE

I want to know if it is in order to discuss Regulations that have not a clear application to certain cases?

Mr. SPEAKER

I think it is.

Mr. HARDIE

Is it in order to discuss Regulations that specifically state a certain Act and yet assume these Regulations to apply to a country to which the Act does not apply?

Mr. SPEAKER

I have already dealt with that question. This is simply a note for the assistance of Members to show them what rights they have in moving an Address to the Crown in either House of Parliament.

Mr. HARDIE

In the case of the passing of these Amendments, will that be altered to show that it applies to England and not to Scotland?

Mr. MAXTON

May we take it there is a possibility of these Regulations being annulled for England, but no possibility of their being annulled if they apply to Scotland?

Mr. SPEAKER

If this Motion be carried they will be annulled altogether.

Mr. SHINWELL

I have listened expectantly to this Debate in the hope that the Minister of Pensions would be able to clear away some ambiguities about these Regulations. I confess to a profound disappointment. Far from enlightening Members with regard to the object and intentions of the Regulations we have become somewhat more confused. If there is any justification for the speeches made on this side of the House, and for the charges levelled against the Ministry of Pensions and the whole administration, that justification would be found in the speech just delivered by the Under-Secretary for the Department. We have had a flagrant example of ambiguity when reference was made to two very peculiar and specific phrases in the Regulation now under discussion. First of all, we had the phrase "final statutory award," followed by "statutory final award." I submit to the House that the very fact that these phrases are embodied in these Regulations has justified all we have said about the ambiguity of the Regulations themselves. What possible justification can there be for having ambiguous phrases of that kind running through the Regulations? What substantial defence can the Minister or Under-Secretary submit in defence of these phrases? All the Under-Secretary can say is that one of the phrases is a relic of an old Regulation and should not have been before the House at all. That admission reflected very little credit on those responsible for drafting the Regulation. Not only do we charge the Department and those responsible for this Regulation with ambiguity, but when we consider the discussion that has taken place with regard to whether Scotland ought to be included or excluded from this Regulation, we find from the lack of enlightenment which exists on this point that the Regulations are far from being what they ought to be.

Only the other day we had a lecture from a gentleman, for whose legal learning we have very great respect, on the absolute need for clarity in Regulations of this kind and in Bills coming before this House. We have a Committee sitting upstairs almost in the throes of despair trying to extricate itself from legal difficulties set up by legislation for which this House is not responsible, but for which it is now to become responsible, and we want no repetition of that sort of thing. We must be quite clear in regard to the Regulations before us, and I hope that we on these benches will receive undivided support from Members opposite when we demand clarity in all Regulations submitted by the Pensions Department. The men who are to be recipients of pensions themselves are not deeply versed in the technical terminology of the Ministry of Pensions or of any other Government Department, and they are entitled to understand what exactly is in the mind of the Minister and what are his intentions Not only does that apply to ex-service men, but it applies to the medical faculty. I want to turn to an aspect of this matter which is extremely important. I refer to a question which arises in this Regulation and which relates to operations which ex-service men are expected to undergo. I submit to the Minister that compulsory operation will run counter to British sentiment. To ask ex-service men who have suffered very great hardship, to say the least of it—to ask such persons to submit to compulsory operation and not to be permitted to exercise their own opinion on a matter of such importance to themselves, but simply to do as they are told, and particularly when they have the support, perhaps, of their own medical practitioner, and whose opinion may be opposed to that expressed by the medical man who acts for the Department, is surely asking too much.

I submit that the dictatorial attitude, which I am sorry to observe the Ministry of Pensions is adopting—in other words, to say to the ex-service man "stand and deliver," either you undergo an operation at our request, or forfeit all right to a pension, is an outrage on ex-service men who are in that unfortunate and appalling position. I would go further and say that the argument—I use the term argument for purposes of discussion although I fad to see the force of the statement made—the argument which the Minister used in support or in extenuation of the conduct which is behind such a proposal seems to me to be most fallacious. What he said was this. He said, of course, a man has always the right to appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. I am afraid that is very small solace to a man who is in such a position. If I may say so, the Pensions Appeal Tribunals to-day are the graveyards of the hopes of many ex-service men. At all events, if communications which have been forwarded to me in very large numbers are any indication, that is certainly the position, and I say that I reflect the opinion of a very large number of ex-service men in my own constituency in Scotland when I say that they do not look upon the Pensions Appeal Tribunal with equanimity, to say the least of it. To say to these men you have always the right to appeal to this tribunal—which is set up by warrant, I agree—to ask the men to do this is, I think, to go just a little too far, and it is certainly not consoling to the men themselves.

I rose particularly for the purpose of asking the Minister and those associated with him and Members on the other side, to support our appeal for clearness in Regulations which are intended, for the use of those who have to administer Pensions. I do not speak without knowledge on this matter. If I may say so, I have been a member of the Glasgow War Pensions Committee, and I have been Chairman of the Govan Pensions Committee and a member of the South West of Scotland Disablement Committee, and I know something of the trials and tribulations of those who are associated with Pensions Committees. May I say on that point that, just immediately after my resignation from the Glasgow War Pensions Committee, we had a most unfortunate occurrence there when the Ministry took out of the hands of a very enlightened, a very progressive and, if I may say so, a very hard-working Pensions Committee, a very earnest body of men and women, powers, not altogether unlimited powers, but very useful powers which were always used in the interests of the men who came before them seeking relief. That was by no means the right kind of thing to do and I know it was deeply and bitterly resented not merely by the war pensions committee in Glasgow, but by the citizens themselves. Indeed, the Glasgow Town Council—a body with which I was then associated—very indignantly resented the attitude of the Minister.

When I was a member of that Committee I know from my own experience how difficult it was to interpret Regulations which were included in the various Acts and Orders emanating from the precincts of the Ministry of Pensions from time to time. How much more difficult must it be for the ex-service man who prior to the War was in very humble circumstances, perhaps, with very little education and who consequently was unable to understand Regulations. There— fore I do appeal most sincerely, because I do not think we ought to make party capital out of a thing of this sort, for the consideration which we are entitled to expect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

Mr. MAXTON

It shows they are awake.

Mr. SHINWELL

Although we have been accused not merely in this Debate but in preceding Debates, I am sorry to have to make reference to the view that we try to make party capital out of the ex-service man and the ex-service man's suffering. Although we come under the lash of Members opposite in that connection, I would reply by saying this. There is a very simple expedient for removing this question from within the four corners of partisanship or party politics, and that is for the Minister with the support and influence of hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite to relieve the sufferings of ex-service men, and make it unnecessary for Members on these benches to make these constant appeals to the Minister and his Department. I would say further and these are my final words—I am sorry for detaining the House at such length—I would say that we are entitled to make party capital even

out of this question of the sufferings of ex-service men so long as hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who pledged themselves to obtain relief of the proper kind for ex-service men and their dependants, fail to implement their promises and obligations, and we on these benches without having made any promises to ex-service men other than securing for them a measure of justice, can come quite properly to this House and ask from the Minister and his associates for some measure of relief for many of our own constituents. At all events. I do ask, on the wider ground of the need for securing for ex-service men and their dependants the greatest possible measure of relief within the four corners of Acts of. Parliament intended for the benefit of ex-service men and their dependants, for such Regulations as can be easily interpreted and clearly understood beyond all possible ambiguity.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes 92.

Division No. 39.]	AYES	[3.33 a.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)	Hume, G. H.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles	Curzon, Captain Viscount	Hurd, Percy A.
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin	Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)	Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.	Doyle, N. Grattan	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Du Pre, Colonel William Baring	Jarrett, G. W. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)	Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague	Ellis, R. G.	King, Captain Henry Douglas
Barnett, Major Richard W.	England, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Lloyd-Greame. Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Barnston, Major Harry	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Lorimer, H. D.
Becker, Harry	Eyres-Monsell, Com. Botton M.	Lumley, L. R.
Bell, Lieut. Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)	Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)	Frece, Sir Walter de	Manville, Edward
Betterton, Henry B.	Furness, G. J.	Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Molson, Major John Elsdale
Blundell, F. N.	Goff, Sir R. Park	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W	Greenwood, William (Stockport)	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Brass, Captain W.	Gwynne, Rupert S.	Murchison, C. K.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Nall, Major Joseph
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Halstead, Major D.	Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Paget, T. G.
Bruford, R.	Hawke, John Anthony	Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Bruton, Sir James	Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)	Pease, William Edwin
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)	Herbert, S. (Scarborough)	Peto, Basil E
Butt, Sir Alfred	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Privett, F. J.
Button, H. S.	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Raine, W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Remer, J, R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Hood, Sir Joseph	Reynolds, W. G. W.
Chapman, Sir S.	Hopkins, John W. W.	Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Clayton, G. C.	Houfton, John Plowright	Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips	Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.	Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)	Hudson, Capt. A.	Russell, William (Bolton)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney	Stanley, Lord	Wallace, Captain E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth	Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.	Wise, Frederick
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.	Stuart, Lord C, Crichton	Wolmer, Viscount
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Shipwright, Captain D.	Sutcliffe. T.	Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H,
Singleton, J. E.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)	TELLERS TOR THE AYES.—
Skelton, A. N.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)	Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)	Titchfield, Marquess of
Sparkes, H. W.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
NOES.
Adams, D.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Paling, W.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Hardie, George D.	Ponsonby, Arthur
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)	Potts, John S.
Attlee, C. B.	Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-Is-Spring)
Barnes, A.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)	Ritson, J.
Batey, Joseph	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Bonwick, A.	Herriotts, J.	Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Bowdler, W. A.	Hill, A.	Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Broad, F. A.	Hirst, G. H.	Shinwell, Emanuel
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Buchanan, G.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Stephen, Campbell
Buckle. J.	Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)	Sullivan, J.
Burgess, S.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Cairns John	Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon]	Tout, W. J.
Cape, Thomas	Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)	Wallhead, Richard C.
Charleton, H. C.	Kirkwood, D.	Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lansbury, George	Warne, G. H.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Lawson, John James	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Duncan, C.	Leach, W.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dunnico, H.	McLaren, Andrew	Welsh, J C.
Ede, James Chuter	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Westwood, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)	March, S.	White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Fairbairn, R. R.	Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)	Whiteley, W.
Foot, Isaac	Maxton, James	Williams, T (York, Don Valley)
Gosling, Harry	Middleton, G.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)	Muir, John W.	Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Greenall, T.	Murnin, H.	Wright, W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule	Nichol, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Oliver, George Harold	Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.

Question put accordingly

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the provisional Regulations, dated the 2nd day of February, 1923, made by the Minister of Pensions

under The War Pensions Act, 1921, entitled the War Pensions (Final Awards) Amendment Regulations, 1923, be annulled."

The House divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 134.

Division No. 40.]	AYES.	[3.40 a.m.
Adams, D.	Gray, Frank (Oxford)	March, S.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William	Greenall, T.	Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maxton, James
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Guthrie, Thomas Maule	Middleton, G.
Attlee, C. R.	Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Barnes, A.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Muir, John W.
Batey, Joseph	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Murnin, H.
Bonwick, A.	Hardie, George D.	Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Bowdler, W. A.	Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)	Nichol, Robert
Broad, F. A.	Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)	Oliver, George Harold
Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)	Paling, W.
Buchanan, G.	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Buckle, J.	Herriotts, J.	Ponsonby, Arthur
Burgess, S.	Hill, A.	Potts, John S.
Cairns, John	Hirst, G. H.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Cape, Thomas	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Ritson, J.
Charleton, H. C.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)	Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Duncan, C.	Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)	Shinwell, Emanuel
Dunnico, H.	Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)	Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Ede, James Chuter	Kirkwood, D.	Stephen, Campbell
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lansbury, George	Sullivan, J.
Fairbairn, R. R.	Lawson, John James	Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Foot, Isaac	Leach, W.	Tout, W. J.
Gosling, Harry	McLaren, Andrew	Wallhead, Richard C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Warne, G. H.	White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.);	Wood, Major M. M. {Aberdeen, C.)
Watson, w. M. (Dunfermline)	Whiteley, W.	Wright, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Welsh, J. C.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllfle)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Westwood, J.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)	Mr. Ammon and Mr. Lunn.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte	Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot	Paget, T. G.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles	Frece, Sir Walter de	Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin	Furness, G. J.	Pease, William Edwin
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence	Goff, Sir R. Park	Peto, Basil E.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Greenwood, William (Stockport)	Privett, F. J.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.	Raine, W.
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague	Gwynne, Rupert S.	Remer, J. R.
Barnett, Major Richard W.	Hacking, Captain Douglas H.	Reynolds, W. G. W.
Barnston, Major Harry	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Becker, Harry	Halstead, Major D.	Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Bell, Lieut.-Col W C. H. (Devizes)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)	Hawke, John Anthony	Roundel!, Colonel R. F.
Betterton, Henry B.	Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)	Russell, William (Bolton)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)	Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Blundell, F. N.	Herbert, S. (Scarborough)	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Brass, Captain W.	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Hood, Sir Joseph	Shipwright, Captain D.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Hopkins, John W. W.	Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)	Houtton, John Plowright	Singleton, J. E.
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)	Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)	Skelton, A. N.
Bruford, R.	Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.	Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Bruton, Sir James	Hudson, Capt. A.	Sparkes, H. W.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Hume, G. H.	Stanley, Lord
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)	Hurd, Percy A.	Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth
Butt, Sir Alfred	Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)	Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Button, H. S.	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)	Jarrett, G. W. S.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Chamberlan, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel	Sutcliffe, T.
Chapman, Sir S.	King, Captain Henry Douglas	Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Clayton, G. C.	Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Lorimer, H. D.	Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Colfox, Major Win. Phillips	Lumley, L. R.	Titchfield, Marquess of
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)	McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)	Manville, Edward	Wallace, Captain E.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)	Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)	Molson, Major John Elsdale	Wise, Frederick
Doyle, N. Grattan	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Wolmer, Viscount
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring	Moreing, Captain Algernon H.	Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)	Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Ellis, R. G.	Murchison, C. K.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.	Nail, Major Joseph	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.	Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve minutes before Four o'clock a.m.