WAR PENSIONS BILL. (Hansard, 9 August 1921)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have had the pleasure of introducing into this House many Bills, and I think I can recommend this one as being a really useful and good Bill, which will tend to administrative simplicity and to economy. It is based, mainly, on the recommendations of a very representative Committee, which was presided over by the Under-Secretary for Pensions, and which unanimously recommended, I believe, the proposals that are embodied in the Bill.
As regards the first portion of the Bill, which deals with the simplification of the machinery and the alteration of the position of local pensions committees, the Bill recognises, as the Committee recognised, the conclusions to which your Lordships came six years ago, when the original Bill was brought in setting up local pensions committees. Your Lordships then 331 pointed out that as they were going to spend public money there ought to be full control over them. They were important bodies at the outset, though not so important as they became, because, first of all, the suggestion was that they should spend voluntary money which was contributed for extra pensions, and also certain grants which were, given to the Central Committee. But in 1917, when the Naval and Military War, Pensions, &c. (Committees) Act was passed, they became far more important, becoming, in fact, the agents of the Pensions Ministry, although the Ministry exercised a very limited and rather elementary control over them. The result is that last year. I believe, they spent something like £20,000,000 of public money, and, as I say, the control over them was very limited and not nearly sufficient. Moreover, the officials have been responsible not to the Ministry but to the local committees, whose zeal naturally evaporated a good deal after the war and who have not been nearly so active as formerly was the case. In addition, there were far too many of them and a good deal of over-lapping.
Shortly put, the general proposal of this Bill as regards these committees is to make them advisory instead of executive. The Pensions Ministry will, therefore, have all the valuable assistance of local advice and knowledge, but will be able to control its own officials, through its regions and so on, and will sec that public money is carefully spent. Again, the number of these committees will be reduced by about 800—from 1,250 to, I think, about 450. As your Lordships will see from the main proposals in the second portion of the Bill, the work will become rather more stereotyped and simple, and in this way the functions of the committees need not be so much developed as they were before this measure was proposed. It will be seen that the cost of administering the pensions will be immensely reduced and some millions of money—I should not like to say how many—will be saved to the country, without any loss to those who receive the pensions.
The second proposal of the Bill is also of great importance, and is, I think, a very valuable one. Most of these pensions are now of a temporary character, and are constantly reviewed. Twenty thousand men, I understand, are reexamined every week, so that a vast 332 paraphernalia of doctors and all the rest of it are involved, one doctor in every five in the country being engaged in the work. It will be possible to sweep away most of this imposing facade, and it is now proposed that after a period of four years from the time of discharge or the first examination the pension will.be made permanent. That is the result, as I understand, not of haphazard, but of very careful medical investigation. For two years or thereabout there is a. good deal of improvement in the condition of these men; then, for another year, the improvement is rather slower, and you may say that by the end of four years there is a sort of even level of disability reached, and if their pensions are then fixed and made permanent, you do away, in the interest of the pensioned men, with all the tiresome travelling, investigations and examinations, and, in the interest of the country, you save a good deal of money.
There are only two other points in the Bill to which I need allude. The first is that a period is fixed after which no more original claims for pensions can be made. Your Lordships know that in many cases men are discharged, and it is only some years, or at any rate some time, afterwards that they realise that they are suffering front illnesses or disabilities which are directly attributable to the war. Now, the period of seven years has been fixed within which these originating payments must be brought in. I think that is a longer and more generous period than is to be found in any other country. I believe that four years is the nearest approach elsewhere to the period of seven years which is set by the Bill. Thus it will be seen that the Bill really re-organises and simplifies and makes permanent the whole of the complicated administration of war pensions. There is one minor clause which enables pensions to be commuted, or, in the case of the merchant service, puts the members of that service on the same basis as soldiers and airmen. I commend this Bill to your Lordships, because I think it will not only save a great. deal of money, but also a great deal of worry to those who are receiving pensions, and will set free a great many valuable doctors, who are now occupied in this work, for the general service of the country. I beg to move.

§ THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH
My Lords, I do not rise with the intention of opposing this Bill, but for another specific object. I have no doubt the Bill is very much wanted, and will remove many of the difficulties under which we have suffered. Each succeeding Minister has endeavoured to settle questions that have occasioned a great deal of difficulty, and I hope this Bill will prove a satisfactory solution. There is one protest that I should like to make. The noble Viscount talked of the evaporation of interest by local committees. My experience is that so far from the interest of local committees evaporating their interest has increased as time goes I cannot speak too highly of the support that the Minister has always received from local committees and local sub-committees in the county with which I am connected.
I hope your Lordships will pay attention to the powers that are given to the Ministry. Those powers, I admit, ought to be full, but they aught not to be too full. I speak under a sense of grievance, having been chairman of a Committee since its stare. I thought that position would afford me an opportunity of doing something to help the men who had done so much for us. Under the present system the Minister has the power to require the local committee to terminate the appointments of its principal officers. We have had a case of that kind with which to deal. Grave charges were made against two of our principal officers, and tin Minister requested us to determine their appointments. We made some investigation, and passed a unanimous resolution requesting that no action should be taken until the own charged had had an opportunity of answering the charges made against them. I do not think that was an unreasonable request. Very likely the Minister may be right, and I may be wrong, but at any rate what we felt very strongly, and what we still feel very strongly, is that the men who have difficult and responsible positions should not have their appointments terminated until they have had an opportunity of answering any charges that are made against them. We were overruled in these particular cases.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity of saying that I have always been received by the Minister with the greatest courtesy, and I have had more than one interview with him. I used all my 334 powers of persuasion with him, but they were quite ineffective, and the appointments of these two officers were terminated without their having been given a chance to answer the charges made against them. I do not think dart is right, and I hope it will be made perfectly clear that an opportunity will be given, when charges are made, for the men so charged to answer those charges.

LORD HARRIS
My Lords, I desire to call attention to one part of the Bill. Possibly the noble Viscount may say that it is more a matter for Committee than for Second Reading, but I submit, very respect-fully, that it is a fundamental point. I am referring to the composition of the tribunals.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
The appeal tribunals?

LORD HARRIS
Yes, They are statutory bodies, I understand, and they have hitherto been composed of a representative of the Services— that is an ex-Service titan—a member of the medical profession, and a member of the legal profession. That seems to be a very fair distribution of the points of view which might be directed towards an inquiry as to whether a man was deserving of an increase of pension, or of a pension at all, or of a final pension. Now, as I read the Bill, it is proposed to alter the composition of that tribunal, and to do away with the member of it who has had a legal training. Hitherto, that has been the chairman, and it is proposed to substitute for that member with a legal training a second member of the medical profession. We who have had experience of Private? Bill legislation in this House know how very easy it is to find experts who differ, and it is doubtful whether it is quite wise, where a man's future is concerned, to have two members of the same profession, with a chance of their differing and leaving the unfortunate ex-Service man in the position of having to decide between them. If he decides in favour of the man, it will inevitably be said that he is partial. It is open to question whether that proposal is wise.
I should have thought that it was desirable to have a lawyer on the tribunal. Of course, it can always be said that if you want expert advice you can get it from outside, and that there is no necessity to have your expert on the inquiring body. That, I think, is true in some eases, but 335 I am a little doubtful whether it is so in this case. Who is going to settle the legal question, if one arises? Is it not almost certain to be the Department? The Department's legal adviser will give the tribunal his legal opinion. Have the tribunal any power of going anywhere else for a legal opinion? Have they the right to call in outside legal opinion to controvert, if it is possible to controvert, the opinion of the legal adviser of the Department? I would respectfully suggest to my noble friend that before we go into Committee it should be considered whether this is not an unwise change and whether the composition of these tribunals should not remain as it is, because T understand they have given satisfaction to the parties principally concerned—namely, the unfortunate men who make an appeal because they think the lower tribunals have not decided fairly to them.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word in reply to what my noble friend, Lord Harris, has said. These appeal tribunals, as regards making permanent these assessments for pensions—of course, they did not deal with permanent cases before—were composed of a doctor, a lawyer, and an ex-Service man. I believe in many cases the questions brought before them were of a. semi-medical and a semi-legal nature, so that they required the assistance of these gentlemen. But now I understand the case will be rather different. They will really have nothing to do but to settle the permanent disability of these ex-Service men. The questions will be purely medical ones, and I think your Lordships will see that, if the questions are purely medical, the lawyer, however valuable he may be on most occasions, will be of no value whatever, because he will not be able to set up his medical opinion against the doctor's. It is much better that it should be predominantly a medical tribunal. I do not know whether that statement will meet what my noble friend has suggested.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
think if my noble friend will look at the clause he will see that in the first subsection the Minister has a very wide power, which may be open to question in Committee, of prescribing the principles upon which any such awards are to be made. That clearly goes very far beyond the actual medical condition of the particular 336 patient. I have had some experience of tribunals, and there is no doubt when you once begin to work with certain principles which have been originally laid down a regular code of jurisprudence gradually builds itself up and you require a lawyer to help you. We certainly found that we needed a lawyer's assistance.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
I will consider the matter as the noble Marquess presses it, but I understand that these questions will really hardly arise. It will not be so much whether this case falls within one department or another of the Act or of a rule, but as to what, is the actual medical condition of the man himself. But I will confer further with the Minister of Pensions, as the noble Lord has raised the question.