HC Deb 19 February 1920 vol 125 cc1056-7W

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in many cases the Civil Liability Commissioners are now refusing grants to ex-service men whose claims are, in the opinion of local civil liabilities committees, identical with those previously sanctioned; whether this differentiation of treatment is due to the desire of the Government to economise; and if he can give instructions that these grants shall be made to men who were late in being demobilised on exactly the same terms and conditions as to those who were amongst the first to be demobilised?


The alleged differentiation of treatment of cases by the Civil Liabilities Department is probably due to misapprehension regarding the scope of the King's Fund and the Civil Liabilities Department respectively. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him yesterday in reply to a question on this subject.


asked the Minister of Labour, whether he is aware that disabled men who do not need to undergo medical treatment are precluded from obtaining resettlement grants from the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department, because they have on discharge, or at some later date following discharge, begun a course of training lasting 12 months or more, and cannot apply for such grants until the expiration of that period because of the condition that they must be spent within three weeks of receipt; and whether, in view of the hardship involved, he will consider the advisability of amending the conditions governing the case of such men either by giving local committees some discretion or otherwise?


It is not the case that an application to the Civil Liabilities Department for a grant is necessarily refused, because the purpose for which such grant is sought cannot be attained within three weeks. On the contrary, provisional grants are frequently notified to become payable on fulfilment of a condition, such as obtaining business promises or termination of a course of treatment for disability. This ground, therefore, docs not afford any reason for amending the Regulations as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. I should, however, add that, for the reasons explained by the Lord Privy Seal in a reply to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Member on the 16th February, the Department as a general rule are precluded from assisting towards starting in a business of his own a man who has already received, or who is receiving, a course of training for employment at the public expense.

Forward to