§ THE EARL OF MAYO had the following Question on the Paper—
§ To ask His Majesty's Government why totally disabled soldiers are not granted 25s. per week pension as per Army Form B 218 P. dated 15th June, 1915, and to quote instances.
380
§
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the question of totally disabled soldiers. The Army Form to which I refer in my Notice on the Paper says—
The rate for a private soldier totally incapable of earning a livelihood will be 25s. a week, with 2s. 6d. a week for each child (under age 16) born before discharge.
That is a definite promise made by the Army authorities. Then I have in my hand a recruiting paper which has been sent to me from the Headquarters in Dublin. It begins by asking the would-be recruit whether he has ever seriously considered how his financial position would be affected if he joined the Army. The paper continues in the form of a catechism, and I will read to your Lordships the portion bearing on the subject which I am bringing forward—
Q.—I understand also that pensions are allowed to disabled soldiers?
A.—That is so. Men disabled through war service are eligible for pensions, varying according to rank and the extent of their injuries. The rate for a private soldier totally incapable of earning a livelihood is 25s. a week, with 2s. 6d. a week for each child under sixteen years of age born before he was discharged from the Army.
This recruiting paper was largely used in Ireland by the head recruiting committee. It was sent out to the local recruiting committees; and many men joined the Army understanding that they would have this pension. Again, in a pamphlet issued from the War Office during August of last year and headed" What the disabled soldier wants to know," there appears as the first paragraph—
Every European soldier discharged as totally incapable of earning a livelihood owing to wounds or injuries, or sunstroke, received in action or in the performance of military duty…gets a pension of 25s. a week, under the Royal Warrant of 21st May, 1915.
This promise, therefore, has been very definitely made by the Army authorities.
§
I will cite to your Lordships the cases of two men who were in the Dublin Fusiliers, and who, each of them, lost a leg in the present campaign. Previous to the war they were agricultural labourers, and now, naturally, they are totally incapacitated from earning a livelihood as agricultural labourers. Their names are Walsh and Drumin. Walsh is in receipt of only 10s. 6d. a week. He says—
It is very little for me, and I would be very grateful if you could do anything for me.
381
Drumin writes—
I was wounded in action…. The pension I have is 25s. a week for two months only; and then 10s. 6d. a week!
That was written a little while ago. He is now getting the 10s. 6d. a week. I have instanced only two Irish cases which have come to my knowledge, but naturally there must be many other cases throughout the United Kingdom of soldiers totally incapacitated yet not in receipt of the 25s. pension, which, as I have pointed out, had been distinctly promised to them. If an agricultural labourer loses a leg in the war, how can he possibly do the ordinary work of an agricultural labourer, such as digging, reaping with a scythe, pitching hay, or loading a dung cart? It is only fair that those who, as the result of losing a limb in the war, are unable to earn a livelihood should get the 25s. a week. I hope that the answer which the noble Lord opposite will give to-day will be more satisfactory than the reply given to Lord Salisbury a short time ago. I feel strongly on this subject, as do Army officers who have spoken to me on the matter. Of course, a clerk who has lost a leg or an arm may still be able to earn some money at his desk. But it is different in the case of a man who has to work out of doors, and I cannot see how the Government can decline to pay him the full pension promised, especially when men were induced to join the Army voluntarily by such promises.
LORD SANDHURSTMy Lords, I am sure we all sympathise with my noble friend opposite in doing what he can to get the best possible terms for men who have done so well and suffered so much. On April 18 last I explained the whole story at the instance of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, and I think I correctly stated the arrangements for pensions and the principles upon which the matter was worked. I do not propose to repeat all I then said, but I may point out to my noble friend opposite, who perhaps was not in the House on that occasion, that the arrangements at Chelsea are under a Royal Warrant which is based upon representations of a Select Committee; of the House of Commons, I think in 1915. That was a very strong Committee, and included the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor. There may have been one other member, but I cannot for the moment recall his name.
382 As the noble Earl stated, where it is established that a man is totally incapacitated he would receive 25s. a week plus 2s. 6d. a week for each child under sixteen years of age born before discharge. But, as laid down in the Report of the Committee to which I have referred, that incapacity does not refer to the man's actual trade or calling before he went to the war; it refers to what is known as his position in the general labour market. Experience has shown that men incapacitated from following their original line of business have in many cases been able to obtain other occupation from which they have received, we will say, 12s. 6d.—half the amount of the total incapacity pension. The wage they receive is made up by the State to the amount of 25s. I wish to lay stress on this, that the guide in this matter is not incapacity in one particular trade, but what is known as the man's value in the labour market.
The noble Earl spoke of two soldiers who had lost a leg each and were in receipt of 10s. 6d. a week. This rate of 10s. 6d. has been somewhat, modified. A man who has lost a leg at the hip gets 16s., a man with a "short thigh" 14s., a man who has lost his leg just above the knee 12s. 6d., and a man who has lost his leg below the knee 10s. 6d. For the amputation of an arm, if it is taken off at the shoulder, he gets for the right arm 16s., for the left 15s.; above or through the elbow, Ms. for the right, 13s. for the left; and below the elbow, 11s. 6d. for the right, 10s. 6d. for the left. The 10s. 6d. pensions to which my noble friend referred may have been made before this modification.
LORD SANDHURSTIf my noble friend has cases of hardship, or cases in which he considers total incapacity is made out, and will be so good as to send particulars to me, if he thinks that is a more expeditious method—Chelsea is not at all anxious to delay matters, though of course the volume of business which has to be dealt with is very great—I can assure him of the most prompt and sympathetic consideration of those cases.
§ LORD BERESFORDMy Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend opposite whether the promise to increase the staff 383 at Chelsea and the size of the building in which they work has been redeemed. In reply to a question which I put a little while ago, the noble Lord said that if a man lost a limb he received 25s. a week. What I want to find out is whether the man is ever in the position of receiving 10s. 6d. only when not earning anything from any other employment, or does he receive 25s. until he earns money from some other employment.
LORD SANDHURSTI am speaking without notice, but in reply to the noble and gallant Lord's first question I can say this. I happened to go to Chelsea this afternoon to make myself acquainted with the answer for the noble Earl, and I found the hall crammed with papers in connection with cases and the place full of young ladies and stools—very uncomfortable it looked. They are doing everything they can to get the necessary increased accommodation. Lord Beresford's second question dealt with the case of a man who had lost a leg or an arm. My noble friend will remember that a man who has lost a limb receives 25s. A man is not discharged, of course, immediately his leg or arm is amputated. He may wait perhaps a month until he gets better. Then he is provided free of charge with the best mechanical limb, and whilst he is getting accustomed to that leg or arm, or looking about for employment after he is able to use the artificial limb, he receives for a period of two months the 25s. a week. I understand that in no case will he receive a less pension for the loss of the limb than 10s. 6d. a week, irrespective of any wages he may earn.
THE EARL OF MAYCI thank the noble Lord for what he has said with regard to the cases which I brought forward, and I shall certainly forward to him full information thereon. The noble Lord said something about the man's value in the labour market. I should like to ask any member of this House whether he would employ as an agricultural labourer a man who had lost a leg. Here you have two men who fought in the Dublin Fusiliers, uneducated Irish labourers. They have families, and are getting only 10s. 6d. a week. How can 384 they live on that? Their labour market is the agricultural labour market, and they cannot get anything to do. It is extremely hard that they should get only 10s. 6d. a week. I must say that I do think the scale of 12s. 6d. when a leg is cut off at one place, 14s. if cut off at another, and 16s. if amputated at the hip is a dreadful statement to hear from the Government.
§ LORD JOICEYMy Lords, in all the industries of the country there are men who meet with particular accidents. These questions are gone into carefully in connection with the Employers' Liability Act, and it is astonishing how accurately the Judges value an arm, a leg, an eye, or anything else. The question of these pensions is most difficult and complicated, and I am sure His Majesty's Government will realise that it is the wish of the country to be generous to the men who have been fighting for us. At the same time I think that men with only one leg can get employment. I know many such men who are employed. I have a keeper who has lost a leg, and he is still the best keeper I ever had. If a man can do a certain amount of work it is always customary to take that into consideration when he receives a pension. If the Government consulted men who have had great experience in dealing with this question in connection with employers' liability insurance, and so on, they might get a good deal of useful information that would enable them to come to a correct decision on this point.