2. Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases during the last 12 months in which pensions have been reduced on the alleged grounds of errors discovered in the original assessment of dependency; the number of cases where such pensions have been in operation for two or more years without these errors being discovered; and the total amount of deductions made in all pensions for these reasons during the last 12 months?
§ 14. Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has bean drawn to the great amount of distress among dependant pensions owing to a general issue of notices stating that an error was made in the computation of such pensions, resulting in a deduction by one-half of many of those pensions; and if he will give instructions to restore such pensions and pay back the deductions which have been made?
19 and 21. Mr. J. MUIRasked the Minister of Pensions (1) in what way it is ascertained what the degree of dependence of parents and dependants was when such has been reassessed, and on the basis of which pensions of this kind are being reduced;
(2) if he is aware of the discontent that exists following the large reductions made in the pensions of widowed mothers and other dependants of deceased members of the forces following the review of their pensions; whether the assessment of dependency was in the first instance made by Government officials; and, if so, why it is considered necessary to review the amount of dependency seven or eight years after the pension was first issued?
§ Major TRYONI apologise to the House for the length of my answer. The class of pension to dependants referred to —the pre-War dependance pension—is only one of the three classes of pension in issue to dependants by my Department. Owing to the fact that serious errors were found to have been made in a certain number of cases, the Ministry were 238 obliged to review the assessments made in this class of pension, in order to justify the charge upon public funds. The basis of pre-War dependence pension is the ascertained amount of support regularly given by the deceased soldier to the dependant, after allowing for the value of any benefits which he derived from his contribution. In order that the parents of men who enlisted a long time after the beginning of the War, and who, during the intervening period, had been engaged on war work and thus been able to draw abnormally high rates of wage, should not be in a more favourable position as regards pension than the parents of men who enlisted on the outbreak of war, the Warrants of the Ministry have, from the outset, provided that any increase of the regular contribution due to war conditions, should be excluded.
The pensions in question were awarded in the first instance upon Information obtained either by officers connected with Old Age Pensions administration, or by temporary officers specially employed, for the purpose of separation allowance, which was payable during the man's service. In the rush of work consequent on mobilisation, the information was not in all cases verified. For the purpose of State Separation Allowance, which was only temporary, the maximum of which, moreover, was only half that of the present pension, errors were of less consequence than for the purpose of permanent life pension.
Owing to the great volume of work connected with the assessment and award of pensions to the ex-service men who claimed compensation after demobilisation, it was not found possible to undertake the verification of pension awards to dependants until recently. In view of the lapse of time since some of the awards were made, I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to mitigate the consequences of review. It was a general principle that only those cases should be investigated in which there was clear reason for thinking that, an error had been made; and where pension has to be reduced, opportunity is given to the pensioners to obtain a pension on the basis of need if their circumstances justify it.
The review of old awards is one which personally both I and my predecessor would gladly have avoided had it been possible. But I am happy to say that 239 the greater part of the work has now been completed, and it will be entirely finished within the next few weeks. The result of the review is that only one in 10 of the 330,000 pensions to dependent parents and others in issue has been affected, and the net result as regards the expenditure on dependants' pensions, which amounts to over £8,000,000 a year, is a reduction in the present year of about £85,000, or about 1 per cent. of the total cost.
Mr. THOMSONWill the right hon. Gentleman give the information which is specifically asked for in the second and third parts of my question?
§ Major TRYONI have not got the information with regard to one, two and three years separately, but I have given the general effect, which I thought was what the hon. Member desired.
Mr. THOMSONIs it not a fact that where an error in assessment has arisen the Ministry itself has been a party to that original error; and if the Ministry has been responsible, seven, eight or nine years ago, in some cases, will not the Minister see, where real hardship is inflicted, that the original assessment of dependency which his Department sanctioned is not disturbed?
§ Major TRYONI cannot give any undertaking to continue, as a permanent charge for the rest of a man's life, an annual payment which has been shown to be wrong. We are anxious, however, to clear up these cases, and I have issued instructions that these men should have special opportunities of stating their cases so that any injustices which may exist should be removed.
§ Mr. STEPHENCan the right hon. Gentleman inform us from whom he made inquiries with regard to the amount of the reductions?
§ Major TRYONWe would be glad to welcome any evidence which would help us to arrive at a correct result.
§ Mr. STEPHENBut I would like a definite answer. From whom were inquiries made? Was it from the employers?
§ Major TRYONEmployers were among those whom we consulted, and we are also anxious to give applicants themselves every opportunity of helping us.
§ Mr. SHINWELLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that in many cases more than two-thirds of the original pension has been taken off, and in view of that, how does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at the conclusion that the reduction amounts to only 1 per cent. of the whole?
§ Major TRYONI answered a definite question put to me, and the answer I gave was correct. Of the pensions altered all have not been altered adversely to the applicant, and in some cases we have been able to give a need pension in substitution for and sometimes in excess of the original allowance.
§ Mr. SHINWELLCan the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total reduction on the pensions which have been reduced?
§ Major TRYONI have already given an answer to that question.
§ Captain Viscount CURZONCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British Legion was one of the authorities to be consulted before taking action?
§ Major TRYONIt was more than that. It was a Select Committee of this House which recommended that these pensions should be revised, and there were Members of the Labour party and of all parties on that Committee.
§ Mr. SHINWELLDid the British Legion acquiesce in this proposal?
§ Major TRYONI am not aware if—
§ Mr. KIRKWOODrose. HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] It is not fair. [Interruption].
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must not remain standing when I am on my feet. Further questions to elucidate the matter can be put down for answer on Monday.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODBut, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member defies my ruling, by remaining on his feet when I am standing, I shall be reluctantly compelled to deal with him. I hope he will remember that rule. Further questions on this subject must be put down on the Paper, as I have said, for Monday, in fairness to other Members.
§ Mr. SHINWELLMr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
§ Mr. BUCHANANrose—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. MAXTONOn a, point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] The Minister has told us that he has given us the reply to one specific question on the Paper. As a matter of fact, the Minister has replied to half a dozen questions that appear in different places on the Paper, and he has not answered the points raised in the half dozen questions he has answered collectively. I put it to you that we should be allowed, by supplementary question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have allowed quite a number of supplementary questions already. Further points must be pursued by questions put on the Paper for Monday.
§ Mr. SHINWELLOn a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I submit that it is a perfectly competent point of Order. The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) put a question in reference to an action of the British Legion, and I want to ask whether, having regard to the fact that a reflection is cast on the British Legion in regard to acquiescing in proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, we are not permitted to question the right hon. Gentleman as to whether it was a fact that the British Leg ion did acquiesce.
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps the hon. Member will follow the course which I have already indicated.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI wish to give notice—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have called upon the hon. and gallant Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley) to put the next question.