§ 5. Mr. W. BAKERasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that at the present time there are 56 ex-soldiers and sailors, with 168 dependants, in receipt of Poor Law relief at Bristol on account of sickness, and that of this number there are five men in receipt of dis- 1583 ability pensions on account of War service and other men whose pensions have been stopped or their appeals disallowed; whether he is aware that the Bristol Guardians have expressed the opinion that it is unsatisfactory that an ex-soldier in receipt of a disability pension should be compelled to apply to the guardians for assistance in the case of sickness, and, further, that persons compelled to apply to the guardians for help on the account of illness and broken health should be entitled to have their cases reconsidered by the Minister of Pensions; and whether, in view of this expression of opinion, he will take steps to have the whole position regarding the relief of ex-service men reconsidered?
§ Major TRYONI have received representations from the Bristol Board of Guardians to the effect stated in the question. I would remind the hon. Member that my duties are confined by Statute to the provision, subject to the Royal Warrants and War Pensions Acts, of compensation and of medical treatment for disablement caused by war service only. So far as any of the cases referred to are of this type, it is open to the board of guardians to take the action indicated in the Circular addressed to all boards of guardians by the Ministry of Health in October, 1923. Any assistance that may otherwise be required by ex-service men in consequence of ill-health or unemployment necessarily falls to be provided under the arrangements in operation for the civil population at large, which are outside the purview of my Department.
§ Mr. BAKERHaving regard to the many distressing cases where men are unable to find employment as a result of their disability, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing fresh legislation?
§ Major TRYONI am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, because if we were to take employment into account some pensions might be increased, but a large number of pensions now being paid would cease.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIn view of this kind of case, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to appoint a Select Committee to investigate these cases?
§ Major TRYONI am not prepared to adopt a suggestion which would mean that a large number of people who are getting pensions would not continue to receive them.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWhat right has the right hon. Gentleman to prejudge what the decision of the Committee would be?
§ 68. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men resident in the Poplar, West Ham, and Stepney unions are in receipt of indoor or outdoor relief and are not receiving any unemployment pay from the Labour Exchanges; the number of widows, orphans, or other dependants of deceased or disabled ex-service men resident in the above unions in receipt of Poor Law relief; and the number of disabled or other ex-service men who are in receipt of relief in the same unions?
§ 69. Mr. COMPTONasked the Minister of Health the number of ex-service men in the Manchester and Salford area now in receipt of Poor Law relief; and how many of these are drawing this relief as a result of being refused unemployment benefit?
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain)The information for which the hon. Members ask is not available. A return containing some of this information was obtained in 1924, but I do not think that the value of the return was such as to justify the considerable trouble and expense to the Poor Law authorities which the preparation of further returns would involve.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWill not the local authorities give the right hon. Gentleman the information if he officially asks for it?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe question on the Paper is as to how many ex-service men are in receipt of indoor and outdoor relief, and so on. The unions can only give the information after very careful investigation into the cases, which would involve considerable labour.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest unions in London can give him this information without any extra expense, and they have 1585 done so, and it costs nothing extra at all. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question?
§ Mr. COMPTONThe Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) received these figures last week in the case of Nottingham; why are they refused to me in the case of Manchester and Salford?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINBecause they are not available without further expense.
§ Mr. LANSBURYCan the right hon. Gentleman tell us what authority he has for saying that it would cost money for the unions to give this information? What unions have told him that he cannot get the information without extra expense?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINThat is the information which is given to me by my Department.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWill the right hon. Gentleman inquire in his Deparment on what authority be was told that the production of this information would cost extra money? Is not this House entitled to have the information asked for in the question? Why does he hide it?
§ Mr. BUCHANANIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland gave us figures relating to one of the biggest parishes in the country, that is, Glasgow; and why cannot he give the information asked for?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe circumstances are generally different in Scotland from what they are in this country.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister has a right to refuse to answer a perfectly simple, straight question that I have put to him?
§ Mr. COMPTONIf I put this question down again next week, shall I then have an answer to it?
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINYes, Sir. The hon. Member can have the same answer next week as he has got this week.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMr. Speaker, I am going to ask you, how, as a matter of 1586 fact, can order be maintained? There has been one scene here this afternoon because a Minister refused to answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no! "]—questions which were capable of being answered. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly simple question, and in the most contemptuous manner he refuses to answer it.
Mr. SPEAKERIt is for Ministers to decide what answers they give to questions. No point of Order arises. I have allowed the hon. Member to repeat his question, and the Minister has not thought it proper to answer.
§ Mr. LANSBURYOn a point of Order. If Order is to be maintained in this House, ought not Ministers to be courteous in their manner towards Members who put questions, and give an answer to them?