HC Deb 15 May 1941 vol 371 cc1357-66

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. Boulton.]

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke)

In raising the matter on which I propose to speak I wish to make it clear that I am not attributing responsibility to any one individual for the present serious state of affairs. I have been interested in this matter too long to do that. My main object is to direct the attention of the Cabinet to the matter and at the same time to say to Parliament and every individual Member of the House that they have some responsibility for it. Nearly every Member I have come across is critical, yet is not prepared to take collective action to deal with the matter. Therefore, I wish to place the case on record to emphasise that every Member of the House has some individual responsibility in regard to it, and to hope that in the near future Members will be prepared to take collective action. I want to open my case by quoting from the annual re port for this year of the Manchester and Salford Trades Council. A foreword to the report was written by the President of the Trades Union Congress, Mr. George Gibson, who says: It is easy, too, to point to what happened after the war of 1914–18, but there are several millions of men in this country to-day who experienced the aftermath of the last war, and who are determined that our young men who bear the brunt in this fight shall not receive treatment similar to that meted out to the ex-soldiers following upon the last war. I include myself among those to whom Mr. Gibson refers. The annual report of the British Legion for 1940 refers to: the complete redrafting of the Royal War rant in respect of compensation for death and disablement due to the present war. It goes on to say: These, however, do not go far enough," and states: Alternative pensions, the right of appeal, the raising of the present rates, are matters calling for settlement and adjustment. These matters had not been settled at the conclusion of the year and the Legion will not be content until they are justly and equitably decided. I first raised this matter on 6th June, 1940, when I put a Question to the Prime Minister. I said: The announcement was made during the week that the Royal Warrant dealing with pensions for ex-service men was to be issued next week. In view of our experience in the last war, would the Prime Minister give the House an opportunity of considering that Order before the Government finally adopt it? The PRIME MINISTER: I think it will be time for this Question to be put in the regular way when I have had an opportunity of consulting the authorities." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1940; col. 998, Vol. 361.] Time after time I have raised the matter without getting any satisfaction until finally, on 23rd April, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would move for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the regulations and interpretations and administration of the Ministry of Pensions. On that occasion the Lord Privy Seal replied that he was not aware of any development since the previous September of sufficient importance to justify a departure from the view that he expressed on the 18th of that month. The Minister of Pensions had informed the House that he intended to call together his statutory Advisory Committee. It had been announced that the administration of the Department was already being examined in detail. To a certain extent our grievances and allegations had been recognised by the movement that had been made in those directions. During the past 20 years we have all seen men wearing ribbons and disability badges begging, playing instruments, displaying paintings, and parading their poverty in London and other large centres, outside cinemas and football grounds.

There are few of us who have not felt a cold shudder pass down our backs when passing such men parading their disabilities in the streets. Most of them were incapacitated in the service of the nation. I always feel that I might easily have been one of them. I am pleading that when they have been incapacitated in the service of the nation, they should be maintained by the nation. They should not have to depend on passers-by or on charitable organisations. It is undignified and humiliating to beg. We are asking for justice and, if justice is granted, men should not be allowed to parade their disabilities. I have read the 1940 publication of the International Labour Office entitled "Compensation and war victims." I should like to pay public tribute to the Librarians of the House of Commons, who are, I always find, most Courteous and who go out of their way to obtain publications of this kind. In the preface to that work reference is made to making certain changes sometimes of a far-reaching kind in order to take account of the lessons of experience. That is what we are pleading for. On page 10 it says: When the services required by the community of an individual involve an injury greater than the sacrifice required of all other men to the community, the obligation arises for the community to distribute over all its members the burden of the injury in question. I think that is a sound democratic principle which ought to be accepted by the Government. On page 14 it states: When a man is accepted for military ser vice he is deemed to be in good health. As soon as he is under the supervision of his commanding officer he has no possibility of avoiding the obligations and risks imposed upon him. That supports my theory that, when a man is certified AI in his attestation papers there should be a legal obligation on the State to accept responsibility for him and his dependants should he be affected physically while in the service of the State. Here is a contradiction in the Royal Warrant. Under the Royal Warrant, a man's pre-enlistment record is a basis for pensions scale purposes, but the pre-enlistment medical record is not the basis for pension purposes. This difference has very serious consequences. If a man who is single has joined the Armed Forces, as many of us did, between the ages of 18 and 30, and becomes incapacitated and is placed on disablement benefit, and if he later gets married and has children, his disablement pay remains the same. It means that, because that man is in capacitated he is deprived of the joys of life. Because he has served his country and was disabled in the service of the State he shall not be allowed to get married and have children.

In regard to the medical records, a contrary principle is applied. The man's pre-enlistment medical record should be the basis for consideration. If a man is declared AI on his attestation paper and later suffers and has to apply for a pension, he should be given the benefit of any doubt. I have at meetings spoken to a number of these men, who have been heartbroken. I have met them in various parts of the country. They have had their constitutions undermined. In winter, as a result, they have been subject to in fluenza, pneumonia and other diseases arising out of their war service. Some have suffered from the effects of wettings received while working during last winter on anti-anticraft guns but, not being able to prove that their illness is directly attri- butable to war service, they have not been allowed a pension.

Unfortunately, we are very restricted for time, and I know that the Minister has been sitting here for a long time. But this is one of the most pressing internal questions that can be dealt with. It is one wish which this House will have to deal, or there will be repercussions outside. As far as I am concerned, if I am clear in my conscience, I am satisfied. I have had an opportunity of playing my part. I have a case here of a man who was taken into the Army in 1939 and was passed as Grade I upon enlistment. While serving in France, as a result of getting wet constantly he contracted pneumonia, yet the Minister will not accept any responsibility. I have a statement from this man's doctor. It says: This man's previous medical history, as reported on his panel record, shows that, since 1929 he has lost about ten weeks' work, owing to bronchitis. My own opinion is that his pneumonia definitely aggravated and worsened his chest condition. The liability rests, to my mind, with the Army, since they accepted him and graded him A.I in 1939. That kind of case makes one feel angry about the present administration of the Royal Warrant. I have another case here. I wrote to the Ministry about it and I have received a reply to-day. The letter to which I refer says that the case cannot be admitted for consideration under the Royal Warrant, and declares that the man was killed by enemy action while on short evening pass and in the circumstances the case cannot be admitted under the Royal Warrant. I want to maintain national unity, but I am convinced that when this sort of thing is known outside, as it is in some localities, a great deal of uneasiness will be caused by the interpretation of the Royal Warrant in this way. The letter goes on to say: Consideration for an award of a pension could, however, be given, under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme "— see the grievance that you cause right away— provided that the parents were in pecuniary need, arising from old age" — that in itself leaves a nasty taste in the mouths of most people who receive a letter of this kind— infirmity or other adverse conditions not of a temporary character. The letter then goes on to say that because the father is in employment and receiving £3 16s. a week, it cannot be held that the family are in a state of need. I in- tended to deal with a number of other questions, but there is not time. These grievances do not come only from one quarter of the community.

From 1930 until the present time this question has been raised in conference after conference held by many organisations. I have here a report of the Conservative conference in 1937, when a large amount of indignation was expressed, and this is how that report concludes: There was a brush between the platform and the conference over ex-Servicemen's pensions. A resolution demanded a Government inquiry into the extent of ailments among ex-Servicemen caused by their war service, but Mr. Ramsbotham, the Minister for Pensions, resisted any such inquiry and maintained that no legitimate claims to pensions had been or would be denied. The mover of the resolution, Mr. E. J. Griffith, stood to his motion, and the conference carried it against the plat form and then cheered the result. You do not get that sort of thing in a Conservative conference unless there are legitimate grievances. To-day I am speaking of only hundreds of cases, but next year I may be speaking of thousands, and in time, if the war goes on very long, of millions. I am asking to-day for a fundamental change and for a more generous administration. It is not charity that these men want; it is justice. If men have suffered in the defence of the nation, the nation should defend them and their dependants from want and enable them to enjoy life as well as they possibly can in view of the fact that they are incapacitated.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley)

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question, and I am very sorry he was not able to develop other points, because I quite agree with him that this is a subject which wants well ventilating. When it is ventilated I am satisfied that my Department will come out with flying colours. There will be an opportunity for such ventilation. The Estimates of my Department have to come before the House for approval, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should approach the usual channels with a request that this subject may be put down for debate on the Estimates. I shall then be able to develop the points I want to develop. I should be glad if he would let me have particulars of the first of the two cases he brought forward, and I assure him that I will deal with it very thoroughly and give my personal attention to it. As regards the second case, I remember signing a letter yesterday, and I do not think there can be any grievance in that matter. There is a pension, and as pensions are exactly the same for a private soldier as for a civilian, I do not think there can be a grievance.

The question of pensions has been de bated in this House time and time again. It has been laid down—I think quite rightly—that it is useless to pay pensions to people who have to include them in their Income Tax return and who are in no case really depending on the boy who is killed. They should be reserved for those people who, having established their rights, have reached the position when they require help. Then, assistance should be given. We try to do the same as that boy would have done for his parents. I think my hon. Friend will agree that in the ordinary case if a father is in good work, earning a standard rate of wages, it is not expected that the boys in the family, particularly if they are married, should contribute, but we realise that where parents are in poverty because of old age, sickness or unemployment, the children are expected to do something to help them. That is where the State comes in, and by adopting the present system, instead of paying very small pensions to everybody under the old system irrespective of need, we are in a position to give far larger pensions, to give something really worth having, something which will really help, whereas under the old system there was a very small amount which did not really serve the right and legitimate purpose. In regard to what my hon. Friend has said about men he has seen begging in the streets, has he ever inquired into those particular cases? Has he ever discovered whether they were really ex-service men or not?

Mr. E. Smith

They were wearing medals.

Sir W. Womersley

That is easy; you can buy ribbons, and even medals, in shops. There was a man who stood not far away from my own office and who claimed to be an ex-service man. He has not been there lately, I am glad to say, and I hope he has been told to keep away. One of my doctors, feeling very compassionate towards this man one day when he noticed him shivering in the cold, wearing only an old, thin and ragged overcoat, sent him a very good overcoat. He most indignantly said that he would not have it because it would spoil his trade. Inquiries were made, and that man was earning far more than a Member of Parliament, and was living in the suburbs in very good conditions. You have to inquire into these cases, and the people who know them are the British Legion. I am speaking as a member of the British Legion and as one who is proud of having been a member since 1922. They know the real cases of hard ship, and will tell my hon. Friend what they are.

When we got these appeals—I am speaking now of peace-time—when unemployment was bad and the ex-service men began to feel the real pinch, owing to the system of enrolment on the King's Roll, whereby firms undertook to employ disabled ex-service men, there was a less percentage of disabled men unemployed at the very worst time than of the ordinary civilian population. I have attended meetings where we have had opposite cases put to us. At one a man got up and indignantly wanted to know why the Government made it compulsory for firms to be on the King's Roll before they could have a contract, because it meant that men like himself, who had not served, could not get a job. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me when I say that the real solution of the problem of ex-service men is a pension, plus training for some useful occupation, coupled with a very good endeavour to see that the men are not only trained but are placed in a job.

Mr. E. Smith

What is being done about training?

Sir W. Womersley

I will tell the hon. Member if he will allow me. A good deal has been done about that; the problem of the rehabilitation of disabled men has exercised my own mind ever since I took office. I know from my own experience that 95 per cent. of the men would prefer a job of work to drawing a large pension and doing nothing. Those, of course, who are so badly disabled that they cannot undertake any work at all are provided with extra allowances, as my hon. Friend probably knows, but it is the men who can do some form of work about whom I am so concerned. A good deal has been done in the past towards training them, and the British Legion and other institutions have also done much. We have worked in co-operation with them and have encouraged them to go on with what we consider to be the best work of all. So far as this war is concerned, we have had a few men who have lost their limbs, and where we could place them in a training centre we have done so. I will give one instance of a man who lost his right arm and who is now working in my own Ministry. He wrote with his right hand, and was in fact a right-handed man. We put him into training, and in less than three weeks he was able to write quite nicely with his left hand and do all that is necessary in a clerical job. He is getting the full wages for his grade, plus his pension. What we have done for that man I want to see done for all, and I have been in close consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour on this very question.

We feel that we could use the vocational centres of the Ministry of Labour to advantage in this regard. At the moment, when we are so hard up for labour, particularly in connection with the war effort, those men that we have been able to train so far have been invaluable. They are still getting the pensions awarded to them, plus the amount they earn. That, to my mind, is the right way to deal with the disabled ex-Service man. We have a committee working hard to produce a scheme comprehensive enough to cover all the men disabled in this war. I hope to see their work brought to fruition while I am Minister of Pensions. I shall do every thing I can on those lines, because I realise that it helps a man to retain his self-respect if he can earn, and that will remove many of the difficulties that come along. As regards pensions from the last war, some of the recipients are so badly disabled that they cannot undertake any work. Of the others, something like 4,000 have rejoined the Forces, having been accepted for training and clerical jobs which these old soldiers can do. They are doing a very good job of work. They are drawing their pensions plus Army allowances and pay. It is said by some people that they have a little advantage in that way but they are going to continue to enjoy those benefits so long as I am able to see that they do. Of the rest, some have gone into employment, to assist the war effort. They are setting an example to the country. Of the 12,000 left, we hope to be able to place them very shortly, except for a number who are able to do only very light jobs; and I hope to be able to find a solution for their problem ultimately.

I can assure hon. Members that there is not widespread discontent. Nobody knows better than I do when there is discontent, because I get the letters. I travel about the country at week-ends, and when Parliament is not sitting I spend much time going around discovering grievances, and finding remedies for them. My hon. Friend need not be led away too much by sentiment when he sees a man in the street playing an instrument. He should inquire into the whole position, as I do. To the House I say, Do not take it for granted that every case is genuine. 1 used to think they were, until I got into the administrative side. We have people coming along now, saying that they helped in the evacuation of Dunkirk. They cannot tell what ship they were on, or anything about it. On making inquiries, you find that they were injured in a motor accident, or something of that kind.

Although I try to administer my Department with consideration for everyone who applies, the House will agree that my duty is to see that justice is meted out to those who have suffered disability, and to those who are left if a man. has unfortunately met his death, either in the Armed Forces or among the civilian population, as a result of enemy action, but also to see that none of these people who come along with false claims gets any consideration. That is why I make this appeal to Members, that when these cases, which appear on the statements of the persons themselves to be very hard cases, come along, they should bring them to me or to my Parliamentary Secretary. We are open to see every Member, either in my office or at my room in this House. I am only too anxious to know the facts. When I send a reply to an hon. Member—

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.