HC Deb 22 July 1943 vol 391 cc1132-7

Amendment made:

In page 3, line 21, at the end, add new Sub-section: (2) Where the Minister rejects any such claim as aforesaid on one of the grounds specified in the last foregoing Sub-section and an appeal is brought from his decision,—

  1. (a) the Minister may notify the appellant before the hearing of the appeal that he also rejects the said claim on the other ground so specified, and thereupon the Tribunal shall treat the appeal as an appeal on the issue whether the claim was rightly rejected on both the said grounds;
  2. (b) unless the Minister notifies the appellant as aforesaid, he shall not be entitled, if the appeal is allowed, subsequently to reject the said claim on the said other ground."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger

May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman has not deleted the word "directly" in paragraph (a), where it says: "directly attributable to a war injury"? The word was deleted in respect of the Armed Forces, but here, in relation to the Mercantile Marine, it is not deleted. Paragraph (b) (i) refers to service as a mariner in a British ship. I presume that follows the words of the Act, but a British seaman may be serving in a ship belonging to an Allied country chartered by a British owner. If a British sailor is serving in a ship not under the British flag, is he entitled to a pension under the Act of 1942?

Captain Cobb

I understood my right hon. and learned Friend was going to assure me and others ignorant of the law that the Amendment we have just agreed to does not apply only, as it appears to a layman, in respect of mariners but to every individual who is covered by the Bill.

The Attorney-General

Clause 1 deals only with the question whether injury is attributable to war service. Clause 2 deals with two alternative grounds of rejection. A claim may be rejected on the ground that it is not attributable to war injury or on the ground that the person was not at the time employed in a way which brought him within the scheme. Unless the words were inserted the Minister could first of all reject the claim on the ground that it was not a war injury, and, if the tribunal said it was, he could say that the claimant was not on board a British ship. Our Amendment avoids that. When we come to consider Clause 4, which deals with possible rejection on the ground of misconduct, which may apply all over the field, we are putting in words to make it clear that the Minister must consider that before an appeal is brought. He has to survey the whole possible field of grounds of objection. We want to prevent it going to appeal, coming back, and the Minister raising a new point. The word "directly" is there, because it is in the Act. This is not a Bill to amend the Act but to see that appeals can be brought within the Act. The position is not quite the same as the point we were dealing with under the Royal Warrant. There the question was whether the injury was attributable to war service. I can quite see the argument that "directly" is a narrowing word and that it is better to have it out, but it is different when you are talking about disablement being attributable to war injury. It does not have quite the same meaning as it would have in the case of war service. I might have my arm blown off, and as a result, perhaps a year later, I might be trying to strike a match with my left hand and get a burn. I did that once when I had injured my right arm. That would possibly be indirectly attributable to a war injury.

Mr. Bellenger

Would a member of the Armed Forces get a pension in those circumstances?

The Attorney-General

Disability resulting from disease is a different type of conception from the question whether it is attributable to war injury. We should be out of Order if we argued whether "directly" should or should not be in the Act. It is there and, as this is dealing with an appeal brought under the Act, we have to follow the language of the Act. I was asked a question with regard to British subjects. I am told that a British subject sailing in a foreign ship is covered by the Act of 1942.

Mr. Bellenger

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered my second question quite satisfactorily, but I am not satisfied on the first point. Apparently, because the Clause deals with an Act of Parliament which wants amending to get rid of the word "directly," the Government say, "We must leave it as it is." In the case of the Armed Forces they can do it by altering the pension Warrant, and therefore they have accepted the point of view which has been put up forcibly on previous occasions that we should have a much more elastic definition of the grounds upon which a man can claim a pension. I do not know how the Government can meet the point, though I think they ought to meet it, that a disability from which a merchant seaman might suffer might very well be not directly due to a bomb that hit him on the head but to the fact that a bomb caused his ship to sink and that he was then on a raft in the Pacific Ocean for two or three months and thereby got his disability.

Sir W. Womersley

In dealing with this Clause, it must be understood that it is not on all fours with a service case, because a seaman is not an employee of the Government. What the Government provided was compensation against war injuries, or disablement as the result of war service. A direct hit by a bomb is enemy action. That comes in without question; but there were other things pointed out to us last year by representatives of the seamen which we embodied in the Bill which brought in all kinds of things which might happen by way of disablement in the way of disease because of the abnormal conditions of war service. We had to keep the word "directly" in, because, if a man is not entitled to compensation under the Government scheme, he is entitled, if he can prove his case in the ordinary way, to workmen's compensation. There are two different kinds of compensation open to him. If we removed the word "directly," it would not be benefiting the man, but it might make it difficult for us to settle our position about whose liability it is. If a ship meets with an ordinary maritime disaster in war-time without any intervention from the enemy or any abnormal conditions relating to the war, it is a workman's compensation case and it has to be dealt with in that way. The Government have taken on this great liability of dealing with what are definitely war injuries, or war service injuries, as we call them, due to disease and abnormal conditions. That Bill was thoroughly debated in the House and was carefully considered before we brought it in. We consulted all those who were responsible on behalf of the men, and it was found necessary to keep that word in. In any case we cannot depart from the Act, and if the hon. Member wants it altered, it must be by an Amendment to the Act itself.

Mr. Bellenger

The Minister has enlightened the Committee as to what actually happened, but I will not say that I am satisfied. It looks now as if the word "directly" is in the original Act and in this Bill in order to protect the Government's interest as against the possibility of claims against the employers of the men on workmen's liability grounds. All I am after is to see that the man who gets his injury, not directly attributable, but indirectly attributable to war service, gets compensation.

Sir W. Womersley

That is all provided in the Bill.

Major Manningham-Buller

I would like to express my appreciation of the fact that the Government have met the point I raised in the Debate on Second Reading that under the Bill as originally drafted the Government could cut and come again. I think that the attitude of the Minister in relation to this point should perhaps be taken as amounting to a credit entry in the imaginary balance-sheet of this Bill.

Major Petherick (Penryn and Falmouth)

I am not quite happy with regard to the word "directly," and the point raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I listened to the Minister's reply with interest, but I am not convinced that nothing can be done. We are now amending, to a considerable extent, the whole scheme and conditions under which pensions are granted, and I do not think enough specific cases have been mentioned to illustrate the different points. I can see that certain cases may be covered, but take the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw of a man who is torpedoed in the Pacific. A man who is hit by a bomb or sunk as the result of a bomb and injured would be covered, but suppose the man who was torpedoed got off his ship on to a raft and was exposed for a considerable number of days or weeks and then sometime afterwards contracted chronic bronchitis. In a case like that it would be rather difficult to give a decision if the words remain as they are now. Any doubts surely would be removed by simply inserting an extra Clause in this Bill amending the two Acts which are mentioned at the beginning of this Clause.

Mr. Hogg

There is a small cognate point on which some of us would be glad of advice. By Section 5 of the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1942, it is provided that the expression "physical injury" in the principal Act, in that Act and in the Personal Injuries Act, includes certain diseases and any other organic disease which is an aggravation thereof. As this Clause is drafted the word "attributable" is used without the expression "aggravation" attached. At the bottom of 385 of the Order Paper I have an Amendment which I put down for the purpose of asking that point to be dealt with. It was not called and I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether an aggravation of an organic disease would not be covered by this Clause, and if not, why not? There are some people who are a little troubled about it.

The Attorney-General

It is covered for the reasons that under Section 5 of the 1942 Act aggravation is brought in under the definition of "war risk injuries."

Commander King-Hall (Ormskirk)

If a ship is cast away owing to lack of light on the coast, is it an ordinary maritime risk, and does it come under "directly"?

Sir W. Womersley

It comes under "directly" if the ship was cast away owing to abnormal war conditions.

Mr. John Dugdale

The Minister has assured us that by one system or another a seaman will get compensation. What I am anxious to know is whether the rate will be the same whether the compensation comes from a Minister or from the private company concerned. I do not want us to get in the position of saying that he will get his compensation anyway, only to find that he will not get as much from the private company as he would have got if the Minister took the responsibility.

Sir W. Womersley

We discussed this point with the representatives of the men, and they insisted that they should get no less from us than they would get under workmen's compensation. I do not think the hon. Member need worry about these points. It is not for us to decide what the workmen's compensation rates are today. I have negotiated all the arrangements for the Mercantile Marine Act with the responsible representatives of the men, and I do not see how it applies to this at all.

Mr. Dugdale

I think it matters very much. While we cannot alter workmen's compensation rates, if we find that they are lower than the rates which the Minister would have paid if he had been responsible, many of us would wish the' Minister to take over the responsibility.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.