EX-SERVICE MEN (ARTIFICIAL LIMBS). (Hansard, 2 March 1926)

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I wish to raise an issue with the Minister of Pensions. I know that many questions are put to the Minister, but I do not apologise for raising this subject. It is a question of which I have given notice before, and I also wish to raise the case of a pensioner in regard to which I have not given notice, and I hope to extract a reply from the Minister. In regard to the first case, I have been requested by an association which deals with the limbless ex-service men in Scotland to raise this question. In Glasgow shortly after the War these limbless ex-service men decided to form an association, and only those were eligible who had lost a limb in the War. There were many reasons for the formation of an association of that kind, and with one or two exceptions these limbless ex-service men have been able to keep going all these years in a very creditable fashion. Hitherto they have had no great cause for complaint against the Ministry of Pensions in regard to the limbs supplied to them, and with the exception of some minor complaints the commodities supplied were of fairly good workmanship and met their needs in an excellent fashion. Less than 12 months ago the Minister of Pensions, in his wisdom, decided to reduce the number of limb makers from 14 to two. Until that order was given there were 14 firms who competed with one another and were eligible to make limbs for ex-service men. Since then the number has been reduced from 14 to two. It is rather curious, if my information is collect, but it is what I have been told by limbless ex-service men, that the number has been reduced from 14 to two, and the only two left

§ The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon)
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but this information which I have given to the House has been sent to me by the secretary to the Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association. One of these firms is named Hangaer, a Yankee firm, and the other is a Belgian firm. These limbless ex-service men have asked me why a Government that asks us to buy British goods has cut down the number of firms from 14 to two, and has left only two firms of foreign connection on the list to still continue making those limbs. These ex-service men are simple men, but they want an answer as to why this has been done. The Minister may tell me that these two firms make limbs superior to those made by the other 12, but I would like to know how many complaints he has received from limbless ex-service men against the firms who formerly made these limbs.
So far as the limbless ex-service men in Scotland were concerned, they were well satisfied with the limbs they got from the firms both in Scotland and in England, and, after all, they are the best judges; they have to use the limbs, and they are the persons who have to suffer for their inadequacy or lack of workmanship. Their test is that of actual practice, and they are better able to judge than many Members of this House, with the exception of those who, unfortunately, also have to use such limbs. They are unanimously of opinion that the limbs they received before the number of firms was reduced to two were at least as good as, and in some cases actually better than, the limbs they are now receiving from the foreign firms. In one case, at least, they say that limbless ex-service men were employed by the firms who have been knocked off from making the limbs, and they want to know why the work should be given to foreign firms, 1389 or, at least, why the names of the two firms left on are obviously foreign; whether any part of the work is done abroad, and if so what part; and why firms that employ limbless ex-service men should be knocked off from doing that work. I put these questions on behalf of these people.
I have only one other point to raise, and that is in connection with a pension case which I have already previously raised. It is that of a woman named Mrs. Dochan, who lives in my constituency. Her husband died in Bella-houston Hospital, which is under the control of the Ministry of Pensions. He was in receipt of a pension of over £1 a week at the time of his death. When he died, the doctor in charge of the hospital approached Mrs. Dochan and asked that a post-mortem examination might be held. She refused at first, but consulted her own local doctor, who advised her, in the interest of possibly saving another man's life, to allow her husband's body to be cut up. The doctor at Bellahouston hospital informed her that nothing would be used in evidence against her that was found after the man was cut up. She could have refused, but she gave permission to allow the man to be cut up, and after he was cut up certain defective organs were found in his body; and now, after having given the promise I have referred to, they are using the evidence which they said they would not use, to keep the woman from receiving a pension. To me it is miserable that a woman who could have refused this permission, and by refusing it could have been receiving her pension to-day, is, having given that permission on the faith of certain promises, deliberately cut off from a pension. To my mind it is shameful and wrong. In this case I do not ask for a reply now from the Minister, but I hope he will go into the circumstances, and, if it be humanly possible, have them reviewed. I would, however, ask for a reply in regard to the limbless ex-service men.

§ Major TRYON
I much appreciate the fact that the hon. Member so fairly concedes that it is not fair to expect me to make a reply on an individual case without notice, and I can assure him that I not only appreciate that very fair attitude, but that I shall, of course, inquire into the points he has put forward with 1390 reference to that individual case. On the question of limbs, the hon. Member said that he could find no reason for what had happened. If the hon. Member had read the Report of the Committee, which has been already discussed in this House, or some of the early Debates which took place on this subject, he would have been better informed. The position is quite simple. The previous contracts were coming to an end, and the Ministry found themselves faced with a combination or ring of firms who were refusing to tender under the previous conditions. Therefore, the hon. Member, I am sure quite unconsciously, finds himself fighting the battle of a number of capitalists who have formed a ring against the Government.

Mr. KENNEDY
May I ask whether the two firms mentioned by my hon. Friend were not included in the combine?

§ Major TRYON
I understand that they were, but we were not concerned with the formation of the ring. Our duty did not lie in that direction; our business is to see what we can do to secure the best limbs possible, and the best contracts in the interests of the ex-service men. Faced with that position, we asked a Committee to go into the matter, and I would like again to express the debt that I think the country and the ex-service men owe to all those who sat on that Committee, particularly to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir Godfrey Collins), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fairfield (Major Cohen)—I am sorry he is not here because I would have been glad of an opportunity to thank him for the service he has rendered in this connection to the Ministry and the ex-service men.
The hon. Member implied that the Committee were not in a position to judge well about the position of men who have lost their limbs. I think, perhaps, if he had known that the hon. and gallant Member for Fairfield was on the Committee, he would not have made that remark. There were also representatives of what we call in the Ministry "other ranks"—other disabled men—on the Committee. Our difficulty was not only that this ring was refusing to tender, but that they were standing out against a very important point which affects the interests of ex-service men. It is enormously to the advantage of the disabled that some 1391 form of words should appear in the contract involving maintenance responsibility on the part of the firms concerned, because if a firm knows that it has not only to make limbs which will be passed but that it is to be responsible for the maintenance of those limbs for a considerable period afterwards, that firm is much more likely to be very careful of the materials and workmanship which they put into the limbs.
Therefore, it is very important to secure for ex-service men maintenance clauses for their special protection. Thanks to the recommendation of this Committee, we have been able to get two very good types of limbs, and to get them with a maintenance clause, which is of such value. The action the Ministry took was to adopt the recommendation of a Committee which reported unanimously in favour of the course we took, and it has not only resulted in the saving of a very large sum of money, but, what is more important, it has secured from the firms a maintenance clause which makes those firms responsible for a period of years for the limbs they supply. I have myself seen firms who got left out and tried to get ex-service men to make complaints to the Ministry, but I find the impulse in that case came rather from the unsuccessful firms than, as far as I could see, from the men themselves.

Mr. KENNEDY
Unsuccessful firms?

§ Major TRYON
The firms that did not get the contracts.

Mr. KENNEDY
They were not allowed to tender.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Does the Minister suggest that these limbless ex-servicemen were making complaints that were prompted by the unsuccessful firms?

§ Major TRYON
I am not alleging that that particular association was, but I have seen letters from firms to ex-service men to that effect, asking them to complain. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench has altogether missed the point. We threw this thing open to free competition. The hon. Gentleman is entirely inaccurate. It is because the combined firms refused to tender that we were put into this difficulty.

Mr. KENNEDY
Does the right hon. Gentleman allege that all the firms that formerly supplied limbs were prompted to tender on the basis of the conditions on which the present contracts are held?

§ Major TRYON
No; what the firms did was to refuse to tender when they might have done so, and when they might, any one of them, have got the contract. We were in the position of no longer being faced with free competition from a number of competing firms, but we were faced with a combination against us, and I am very much astonished that the hon. Member should find himself allied with firms who make a combination against the Government.

Mr. KENNEDY
I was stating facts.

§ Major TRYON
The hon. Member was not stating facts. The fact is that these firms were given every opportunity of competing, but they formed a combination, and in combination they refused to tender. Under the circumstances, the Government did not of its own initiative take action, but they appointed a committee which included representatives of ex-service men, and that committee made a unanimous report and on the strength of that unanimous report the Government took action. My information is that these firms are manufacturing the limbs in this country. My further information is that the limbs supplied are quite excellent. It is not the films who formed a combination against the Government who should complain of the absence of free competition.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
One of the firms is a Yankee firm and the other is a Belgium firm. Is it not the fact that the names of the firms are as I have stated?

§ Major TRYON
The hon. Member is probably not aware that these firms were under the previous contract supplying 90 per cent. of the limbs. There was no change from one set of British firms to foreign firms, because, as I have stated, these two firms were previously supplying 90 per cent. of the limbs. I understand that they are entirely manufactured in this country, and if any part of the limb comes from abroad, I am not prepared on behalf of the ex-service men to exclude any part of an excellent limb which may come from abroad. These 1393 firms made 90 per cent. of the limbs and the Committee were unanimous as to the excellence of the limbs supplied.

§ Captain GARRO-JONES
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the 18 were eliminated and the two were chosen? What method was adopted?

§ Major TRYON
I think the hon. and gallant Member would do well if he would read the very excellent Report of the Committee which was presided over with great ability by his own Chief Whip. It was on that recommendation that the arrangements were made to enter into the contract with these two big firms.

§ Captain GARRO-JONES
I have read the Report, but I do not think the Report states by what method these two firms were chosen. That is the information I would like to have.

§ Mr. N. MACLEAN
Is it not a fact that the two firms who were chosen were formerly in the combination, and then they went behind the backs of the combination of which they had formed part, and blacklegged by sending in tenders and obtained an order from the Government, when they had pledged themselves to the others in the "ring" that they would not do so?

§ Mr. MAXTON
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific point put to him by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)? The question is not whether the things are manufactured in this country. The question is, are these two firms foreign firms, and is it the case, as he seems to imply, that the Government, representing the organised power of the State, have absolutely no defence against a little group of capitalists, who may threaten to hold them by the throat, other than giving the contract to some foreign competitors?

§ Major TRYON
It is not the case that we called in a foreign group. We were faced with this combination of firms and we said that we could not allow them to make a kind of corner against the Government. We appointed the Committee, and we took the advice of the Committee and we gave an order for excellent types of limbs and thus secured a boon for the disabled ex-service men.