HC Deb 28 February 1929 vol 225 cc2317-22

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £4,294;000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and Kilmainham Hospital; of out-pensions, rewards for distinguished service, widows' pensions, and other non-effective charges for warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES

I would like on this Vote to raise the question of pensions for a moment or two. I asked a supplementary question to-day of the Minister in connection with the position of the medical chiefs of the War Office in regard to pensions. I wonder if my right hon. Friend will give an explanation to the Committee as to the procedure. I find from the White Paper that the medical department for the purposes of recruiting have formed a consultative committee upon which civilians have been co-opted. I am very pleased to find that this co-option, apparently, has had very satisfactory effects. I wonder if there is any possible chance for any Service man to appeal at the present time against the decision of the medical chiefs of the War Office or of the authorities at Chelsea. Are there any methods by which a man can obtain any record either himself or through his agents as to the medical history or the reason which determines the authorities in deciding whether he is entitled to a pension or not? The difficulties which are constantly cropping up in these cases are causing a great deal of dissatisfaction. Medical men are constantly being worried about them, and, as far as I can find out, the opinion of a civil medical man in a case like this is absolutely of no account. I do not wish to criticise the authority, the action, the eminence, or the skill of the medical officers of the War Office or at Chelsea, but I think it would perhaps give a certain amount of satisfaction to the civilian medical profession, and particularly to the men who are discharged from the Army, if we had some idea as to the procedure in this class of case. What processes are open to a man in the way of appeal? What chance; has he or his advisers or medical men of finding out the history sheet during his service in the Army to see if this class of case could be conducted or concluded to the satisfaction both of the public and of the War Office?

Mr. PILCHER

On this Vote Tam very anxious to draw the attention of the Minister once again to the conditions attaching to the receipt of pensions by some of the old pre-War soldiers. I am referring especially to pre-War soldiers who had not a disability pension but ordinary service pension under the old pre-War Warrant. I have here the case of a man who served in the Royal Artillery from 1893 to 1912, and on the basis of that service he was given only a pension of 2s. 3d. a day. Subsequently, since the War, he has been given a small percentage increase, but there has been no re-assessment of that pre-War pension. Every time he comes up for till renewal of the percentage increase which was given him in 1920 he has to answer a most formidable, and, I cannot help thinking, quite objectionable array of questions and inquiries as to means. I should like the Committee to realise to what these pre-War men, who did so much in the Army before the War, are subjected to-day. This particular man every time he comes up for the renewal of the percentage is asked the following questions: The amount of the original Army pension, the amount of other pension or annuities, the net annual value of any house property he may have, the interest he is receiving on stocks, etc., including the Post Office Savings Bank, profits he is making from trade and business, profits his wife is making from her trade, the wages of his employment, the wages of his wife's employment; does he sub-let any rooms to relatives or others? If so, what profit does he make by sub-letting these rooms? The yearly value of gifts received from his family or other sources, and income from other sources.

This man is a splendid fellow. He had 19 years service in the pre-War Army, and he served throughout the late War, but got no allowance in respect of it. He is in receipt of the magnificent pension of 2s. 3d. a day, plus a small percentage, and every year that the percentage comes up for renewal, this is the sort of inquisition that he has to answer in detail before a magistrate. Would it not be possible to modify the form very much or, better still, to reassess these pre-war long-service men—they are not a very large class—who were invalided out for disability and, technically, were given service pensions? Could not they be reassessed and put on the same footing as the men who did active service during the War? This man volunteered for active service during the War, but owing to his non-technical disability he could only do work in the Army Service Corps at Falmouth. These men would be very grateful to the Secretary of State for War if he would give serious consideration to this hardship.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I will answer, first, the question put by the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies). As the matter stands now in regard to a disabled man who gets a pension on account of disability, his papers go to the Board at Chelsea and there they are examined with the greatest care, The medical evidence is sifted, and he is examined, and so forth. If he is discontented with the result, there is an appeal to the medical authorities at the War Office. I can assure my hon. Friend that these appeals are treated with the greatest possible care and that every consideration that can be given is given to them. Although, quite naturally, the pensioner, frequently, may disagree with the final result, I have examined very many cases, at the instance of hon. Members and at the instance of some of my own constituents, and I can say that the Board and the War Office do really give justice in these cases. I do not believe that there is a better Board dealing with pensions.

The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) gave us a hard case of a pre-War pensioner who has a pension of 2s. 3d. a day. In 1920 and again later, I forget the date, this House discussed at great length what should be done with regard to pre-War pensioners. The money value of the pension has entirely altered, and the old pre-War pension was recognised by the House to be insufficient. Consequently, we passed two Acts of Parliament enabling the War Office pension to be increased, subject to a means limit. There is a, scale of increase. I cannot say the exact amount, because I had not notice of this case, but I think it is 30 per cent. up to a certain income limit, and 40 or 50 per cent. beyond. In this case I believe there is an increase of either 40 or 50 per cent. upon the original amount. That is an ex gratia grant. The State has voluntarily increased the pension, not for increased service or new service, but as a matter of fairness towards the pre-War pensioner. That is an increase on the existing contract pension owing to the variation in the value of money. My hon. Friend now says: "But consider the nature of the questions that are asked." Our power to increase pensions at all depends on our being satisfied that the means of the pensioner are within a certain limit. If they are £150 a year there is no increase at all, and the higher increases are given on the lower rates of income. It is necessary to ask questions. The questions he read out are directed to specific sources of income. They could all be covered by the one question: "What is your income?" But that is not very helpful. It is much more helpful to ask the man: Have you any interest on investments; have you let any rooms in your house; have you this or that source of income? It really is easier to get the true income by asking specific questions.

Mr. PILCHER

May I ask whether it is not possible to adopt a somewhat less inquisitorial inquiry, for I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that these pensioners do feel terribly hurt by having to answer all these questions. Here is a man receiving 2s. 3d. a day pension, and even with the small increase that has been granted he must be in a, position approaching poverty. I do appeal to him to adopt a more sympathetic attitude towards these men.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I should like to get rid of the limit altogether. I hate the limit, and the inquiry into means, whether it is for old age pensions or for any other pensions. I am glad that we have got rid of it in the ease of old age pensions, and I wish we could get rid of it here. But it is not in my power to give away the taxpayers' money. The House itself has determined that an increase of pensions shall be given in certain cases and not in others, and I am bound to administer the Warrant which has been given to me by the action of the House. I have not the precise number of these eases, but I believe there were about 14,000 pre-War pensioners who had their pensions increased under these Regulations. I have seldom heard any complaint, indeed, I think, that this is the first complaint I have heard of the inquisitorial form of the questions, and 14,000 pre-War pensioners have been glad to receive the increases they have obtained.

Dr. DAVIES

I am grateful to the right lion. Gentleman for his explanation. I should like, however, to make one suggestion. In the White Paper a consultative committee has been formed with civilian members, and I am wondering whether my right hon. Friend would give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of co-opting civilian members on the official Appeal Board at the War Office. It would give great satisfaction to pensioners. I hope he will bear this point in mind, especially as he has relaxed the rigidity of the rule in another respect.

Mr. CRAWFURD

With reference to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the point put by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher); it so happens that a statement has recently been circulated bearing on the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that he has heard only one complaint of these regulations. It says this: The restrictive Clauses in the Act of 1924 deprive many of them of pensions earned. I think there must be some feeling about this if an organistion takes the trouble to circularize members of parliament in order to draw their attention to it.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

That is not the point put by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth. His point was the nature of the questions. The point put by the hon. Member for Walthamstow West (Mr. Crawfurd) is the nature of the restrictions imposed by the Act of 1924.

Mr. DUNCAN

I also would ask the Minister if he has the power to stabilise these pensions. These men with pre-War service must certainly be getting up in years, and at the least one can say that they are not likely to start company promoting in order to increase their incomes. The hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. Pilcher) has brought forward a very pathetic case, and owing to the lessened value of money conditions have changed very much since the War.

Colonel GRETTON

The last speaker has made the very point that I wanted to put. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should run some risk in order to comply with the suggestion that has been made. The present irritation and uncertainty cause a vast amount of trouble, and certainly lead to a great deal of unnecessary work for the staff at the War Office.

The CHAIRMAN

I am rather inclined to think that what the hon. and gallant Member suggests cannot be done without legislation.

Colonel GRETTON

I am asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider whether he can take action under the Act which he is administering.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

The question of disability pensions has been raised. I would ask the Secretary of State to allow these pensions to come before the Appeal Tribunal in exactly the same way as the Great War pensions do. That would give a great deal of satisfaction to those concerned, who are not now satisfied.

Question put, and agreed to.