SCHEDULE.—(Constitution, Jurisdiction and Procedure of Pensions Appeal Tribunals.) (Hansard, 22 July 1943)

§ The Attorney-General
I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, at the end, to insert: and the Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, remove any member of such a Tribunal. There is an Amendment down by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) giving a somewhat limited right of removal. We assumed it was plain that the Lord Chancellor would have an absolute right of removal, but when we saw my hon. Friend's Amendment we recognised that it had obviously not been plain to him and might not be plain to other people. We therefore thought it better to make clear on the face of the Bill that the Lord Chancellor has the power of removal. There might be cases in which a man misconducted himself or had not been wholly suitable, or the time may come when it will be desirable to reduce the number of tribunals. We want to make it clear that there is an absolute right of removal, and anything in the nature of misconduct would influence the Lord Chancellor in using his power.

§ Mr. Tinker
What would happen if the Minister of Pensions thought a member of a tribunal was leaning too much on the side of applicants while we thought he was only doing his duty? Would the Lord Chancellor then exercise his power without our having a voice at all?

§ Mr. Hogg
It was exactly for that reason that the Amendment in my name provided only for a limited power of removal. The position was that the Lord Chancellor could remove members of a tribunal only if they misconducted themselves, or proved incapable of acting for some well-known reason. I think there was no doubt that the Bill, as drafted, did not contain power for the Lord Chancellor to remove members of a tribunal who proved unsuitable and we thought it necessary that the Bill should contain such a provision. But we did not think it altogether suitable to give the Executive the right to remove a judicial officer. There are cases where it can be done but the practice of the House in the past has 1193 been to assert the right of judicial officers to retain their position against the will and pleasure of the Executive. It was the subject of a very bitter constitutional fight in the 17th century, which resulted in the victory of the House of Commons over the Executive. Even now, judges of the High Court can only be removed on a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and magistrates cannot easily be removed by the Lord Chancellor at his mere whim, and it seems to me to be an evil constitutional principle to give the Executive the power to remove judicial officers at their pleasure, which is what the Government Amendment does. I am not suggesting that it is the intention of the Government to exercise their power wrongly, or that there is any likelihood of a Government coming into power which would do so, but, on the whole, these constitutional principles have been fought for and should be observed. It is not wise to go against the established experience of centuries. I have some doubt whether the Attorney-General has done right in giving an absolute, unqualified right of removal to the Lord Chancellor.

§ Earl Winterton
I am very glad that my two hon. Friends have raised this question. There is always a tendency in Committee when we are getting towards the end of the sitting to hurry over important points. I hope we shall not do so on this occasion. This Amendment raises a question of great principle. I was going to put the same point as that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and reinforced in a very powerful speech, if I may say so, by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I hope my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will not resent it, or think it unfair criticism if I put some arguments against the Amendment. Have the Government any analogy for putting in a provision of this kind? I had some experience during the time I was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of the great difficulty of removing magistrates, and so I think had predecessors of mine in that office. I do not think I am giving away secrets in saying that.
I think those who have held the office of Lord Chancellor and have the responsibility for creating magistrates have considered whether there should not be some strengthening of the power to remove 1194 magistrates and have come to the conclusion that the danger of undue political pressure is so great that it is better to leave the system as it is, with all its disadvantages. I think we are entitled to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he can give an assurance that there is some similar provision in other cases where power of this kind can be exercised. I cannot see myself any reason why the Amendment should not have been moved in its original form. Of course I cannot discuss the Amendment in its original form, but I can suggest how this Amendment should be amended. I think it should be confined to cases of misconduct, which is easily interpreted, or to cases of ill-health, which would enable a man to be removed if his mental powers had ceased to be what they were. Why give these very wide powers to the Lord Chancellor?
Let not the Minister say that it would be monstrous to suggest that this or any other Government would remove a man because he was unfriendly to them. I agree that that is not likely to happen, but we should consider the impression likely to be left on the minds of the public and of claimants, when a member of a tribunal who constantly gave decisions in favour of appellants, was removed without any reason being disclosed. The question would be asked "Why is he removed?" and the appellants would at once say "We know why he was taken away. He was taken away because he constantly decided cases against the Government." I suggest that this matter raises a principle which is really inherent in British law, namely, that the Executive should not have power to remove people from any judicial position, but if my right hon. and learned Friend can assure us that there is a precedent in analogous cases where the Executive has power to remove, then a lot of our objections would fall to the ground.

§ Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)
The Noble Lord was rather disingenuous in suggesting that the words "misconduct" or "ill-health" should be inserted in the Amendment.

§ Earl Winterton
I really must take objection to that. Those were the words in the original Amendment, and I was really arguing that my hon. Friend's Amendment was better than this Amend- 1195 ment. The term "disingenuous" has been held in the past to be out of Order.

§ Mr. Nicholson
I think the object of the opposers of the Amendment would be defeated if the Amendment were put in limited terms. What would you see? The members of the tribunals would be dull, dreary, safe people with no imagination and no initiative. Far be it from me to say that that applies to judges. Judges are trained people, but in the case of appointments to these tribunals the Government should have some freedom in trying experiments. If they have no power to remove people without giving reasons, because those people were not satisfactory—

An Hon. Member
Satisfactory to whom?

§ Mr. Nicholson
Satisfactory to the principles of justice. It is no good imputing bad faith from the start. If you are to have on the tribunals people of initiative and sympathy and experience, it is essential that the Government should feel capable of being able to remove them if they prove unsatisfactory. Otherwise we all know the type of person who will be on the tribunals—people of extraordinary dullness in intellect.

§ Sir H. Morris-Jones
I hope the Committee will accept the Minister's Amendment. I disagree with the Noble Lord for this reason. For two years we have been told, over and over again, by the Minister that he could not find the right individuals to make up these pension tribunals. I have had considerable sympathy with that contention. I think the Lord Chancellor should have power to remove any person, who may not have been guilty of misconduct, on the ground of sheer incapacity. This Amendment is, I think, in the interests of the ex-Service men, because you may in some cases find people who are not adapted by experience or knowledge or capacity to serve.

§ Mr. David Adams (Consett)
I cannot believe that the Attorney-General really desires that the Minister's Amendment should be embodied in the Bill. No one desires to prevent the Lord Chancellor discharging a member of a tribunal who ought to be so discharged, but surely we should particularise the conditions under which a member may be discharged. If 1196 we do not do so, appellants and the general public will, in certain cases of discharge of a member of a tribunal, feel that injustice has been done. If we are careful in qualifying these powers—let them be generous and liberal—which the Lord Chancellor may exercise, then all will be satisfied. Without that, there is a possibility that injustice may be done, or that what seems to be injustice may be done.

§ Mr. John Dugdale
I support what the hon. Member has said with all the more force because of the words used by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). Until he used these words it might have been said that only reasonable grounds would be accepted as grounds for discharge of a member of a tribunal, but the words he used were to the effect that dull, dreary people might be discharged.

§ Mr. Nicholson
No, I said such people would be appointed. I never said they would be discharged. My case was that you want people of initiative and a certain degree of unorthodoxy on these tribunals. I said if these people could not be used, because there was no power to discharge unsatisfactory members, then we should get dreary people.

§ Mr. Hogg
What initiative is needed by judicial officers?

§ Mr. Nicholson
Members of these tribunals are not analogous to judges, who have to decide narrow points of law.

§ Mr. Dugdale
I agree that you want good people, but whether or not you want people with initiative is another matter. It is one thing to have a right to appoint people and another to have the right to dismiss them. It is presumed that a person who is appointed is a good person, otherwise he would not be appointed. It is quite another matter to say that for certain reasons which have shown themselves afterwards, possibly because of some of his judgments, he ceases to be a good person. If this new rule is brought in for these tribunals, the Attorney-General can only be logical and bring in the same rule for magistrates. As I do not think he proposes to do that, it is not right that he should do it in this particular case.

§ Sir I. Fraser
I would urge the Minister to reconsider this matter. The Amend- 1197 ment which my hon. Friend and I and others put down defines clearly the kind of ground on which we might, in the interests of the administration of good justice, wish to get rid of people, but the Attorney-General's proposal seems to go rather far. A possible way out is that the Lord Chancellor should be asked to state the ground on which he dismisses a person.

Dr. Morgan
I hope that the Attorney-General will reconsider this Amendment, and I hope, too, that he will not agree that the Lord Chancellor should state the grounds on which he dismisses a person. It would be a difficult position for him to have to state the reasons for taking action against any individual. I hope, however, that the Government will accept a proposal such as was made in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). It would be a dangerous thing to give the Lord Chancellor, even though he holds the highest judicial position in the land, a power of this kind and leave us in the air as to the reason why he dismisses a person. It is suggested that he should dismiss a person for physical incapacity, but he is no judge of physical incapacity. He may be the ablest lawyer in the country, but surely the question of physical incapacity is a matter for a trained medical man. To suggest that the Lord Chancellor should dismiss a man on grounds of physical incapacity, as was urged by my hon. and medical Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), is absurd. 1 would ask the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter and see whether the powers granted to the Lord Chancellor should not be restricted in some way.

§ The Attorney-General
It is worth reminding ourselves that ever since the last war, the Lord Chancellor, whether he had it or riot acted on the basis that he had an unlimited right of removal. There has never been the slightest suggestion from any quarter that that power has been exercised on other than proper judicial grounds.

§ Earl Winterton
In what category has he had those powers, and what other analogies are there for them?

§ The Attorney-General
In the last 25 years the Lord Chancellor has exercised 1198 an unlimited right of removal of members of pension appeal tribunals, and there has never been the slightest suggestion that he has removed a person because that person awarded too much, and no suggestion that he has not dismissed a man except from proper motives. Members of these tribunals are different from judges. A man is appointed a judge after considerable experience of a technical kind. This work is a very special sort of work and also—and this is one very good reason—it goes up and down. There is much more work in one year than in another. For instance, after the last war the work began to fall off very much in 1923 and people had to be got rid of from the tribunals. Another suggestion urged is that when any number of men in this war are released they should be put on tribunals in place of people who have not had service in this war. At the moment it is difficult to get members of the various categories who have fought in this war. It will be much easier when hostilities have ceased and a number of them have come back. That is the kind of consideration which arises here which does not arise in the ordinary way.
It would be unfortunate if the Lord Chancellor were restricted. I think that I am entitled to say that he and his predecessors have exercised their powers with regard to these tribunals without any criticism. When in 1923 and 1924 they had to cut down the numbers, nobody suggested, and there could be no shadow of foundation for suggesting, "You have got rid of fellows who were liberal to pensioners." We attach great importance to the fact that all this side of the Bill has been put under the hand of the Lord Chancellor. The Noble Lord asked me for analogies. I will give him one which I agree is much stronger. The Lord Chancellor can remove the registrar of a county court, who is a judicial officer. In this area he does not contemplate removals, but he does want the right to be able to resurvey the field as more suitable men come back to this country and to put them on the tribunals without any reflection on the men who have previously done the work. Therefore, I hope the Committee will leave us this discretion. I appreciate the general constitutional background, but I hope the Committee will feel that it is all right.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
I beg to move, in page 8, line 15, to leave out sub-paragraph (b)

§ The chairman
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss this and the Amendments later on the Paper in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's name on the same subject

Major Martningham-Buller
I hope that will be agreed because these Amendments cover the two points I want to raise. They are points in connection with the constitution of the tribunal, and although the argument I am going to propound may be somewhat contentious, I am sure the Committee will agree that it is of the greatest importance that the tribunal should be constituted as well as possible. The two points which these Amendments are designed to cover are these. First, that on the ordinary appeal tribunal a doctor should not be a member but that the tribunal should have the addition of a doctor as an assessor as occasion arises. Second, the appeal tribunal consisting of two doctors should be abolished. The effect of that would be that all the appeals, whether against final assessment or against entitlement, would go to tribunals of precisely the same sort.
The point I desire to make in regard to the constitution of the tribunal can be stated shortly. In this country we have a judicial system in which there is a judge and a jury. It is not our habit to put experts on a jury to try particular cases. We do not insist that a sanitary inspector should be a member of the jury when the case deals with drainage. We do not insist on doctors trying claims for personal injuries. It is our system to have one man exercising judicial functions and a jury, and in the case of these tribunals I suggest that that example could be followed with advantage. Have your legal chairman and two laymen as members and do not give your doctor a vote. With the greatest respect to the medical profession, I think it is undesirable that doctors on these tribunals should have votes, and I can illustrate my argument shortly in this way. Let us suppose that there are two tribunals and two doctors, one on each tribunal. One doctor may take a very strong view about the effects of the pasteurisation of milk and believe that that will prevent disease. The other doctor may take the view that 1200 pasteurisation has no effect at all, and does not prevent diseases. If you have these two doctors on different tribunals—although the person coming before the tribunals will not know their views—they will approach the evidence given before them with pre-conceived ideas, and it is likely their votes will be cast in accordance with those ideas

§ Mr. Bellenger
Might not the lay members of a tribunal hold similar views

§ Major Manningham-Buller
That is a conceivable possibility; you cannot anticipate what views might be held by lay members. But in other professions we find people with pre-conceived ideas, and I am trying to suggest that the alteration of this tribunal would go some way to prevent what I have described happening and stop doctors attaching more importance to medical theories than to the evidence given before them in a particular case. I think I have put that point clearly and I hope sufficiently shortly. I would urge, too, that the shortage of doctors is an argument in favour of what I am proposing. The fact that doctors may act as assessors will enable doctors to be provided in every case where it is necessary. That is all I desire to say on the first point.
With regard to the second point, the constitution of a tribunal of two doctors for the hearing of appeals against final assessment, no body will be misled by the statement that this is the same as in the case of appeal tribunals after the last war. That is not an argument in favour of the retention of this type of appeal. I believe from information I have received that there was considerable complaint about that form of tribunal, and I ask the Government to say that there should be just one form of tribunal to try all classes of appeals under this Measure

§ Dr. Haden Guest
I rise with a certain amount of diffidence, because my only title to speak is that of having myself been a member of a tribunal for some time and never having discovered any of the objections to procedure which the hon. and gallant Member has brought forward. No doubt that was due to my own lack of acute observation. Nor do I quite see how the question of the pasteurisation of milk is likely to arise in these cases.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
I purposely took an entirely hypothetical case, such as would be unlikely to arise

Dr. Guest
I quite agree. The hon. and gallant Member did put a very hypothetical case; in fact I think his case is so hypothetical that it might very well be allowed to fall to the ground. Having been a member of a tribunal and knowing the work of the tribunals, I say that the three members of the tribunal, the legal member, the lay member and the medical member, work as a very good team. The business of tribunals of this character is to decide a question the chief evidence on which relates to the man's physical condition in the largest sense, and unless the medical man is a member of the tribunal and as a member is being objective and taking a judicial view of the situation, you will, as the hon. and gallant Member said, have to have a medical assessor; that is to say you will have to have a medical assessor who is, as it were, giving the view of the Ministry of Pensions. If he is not doing that, why should he not be a member of the tribunal and be judicial? You will, in fact, have what I may call the workmen's compensation kind of case, which is perhaps what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. There is an appeal before a court on behalf of a workman, resisted by one individual for an insurance company with certain medical evidence, and other medical evidence being produced on behalf of the man. So there is conflicting medical evidence produced before the Court, on which the judge has to make up his mind. You want two doctors for that purpose instead of one. In view of the fact that these appeals tribunals have had a very long life and have worked with satisfaction—I think anyone who has had anything to do with them realises that they have, within the natural limits imposed on human beings, been fair and judicial in all their findings—I feel the Committee should come to the conclusion that the best form of tribunal to carry on with is the type which has proved effective for 25 years. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in suggesting that, and I venture to think, with great modesty and humility, that the medical profession can be quite as judicial and objective as the legal profession.

§ Commander Galbraith (Glasgow, Pollok)
I should like to support the Amend- 1202 ment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller). These tribunals should not, as I am sure they will be otherwise, swayed by medical opinion on the tribunal itself. As the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. H. Guest) said, the question to be decided will be one of physical condition. The tribunal should decide that by listening to the medical evidence produced on behalf both of the appellant and the Minister. It should judge on that evidence. A medical member of the tribunal is bound to sway the other two members, because he is in an extraordinarily strong position. I do not think that should be so. The tribunal should decide on the evidence, and if the evidence is conflicting an assessor should be called in to decide the matter. The tribunal should be a jury listening to the evidence and should decide on the evidence

Dr. Morgan
With, I hope, as much humility as was felt by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) I would like to support the Amendment. For the last 25 years I have been acting as an assessor. My job puts me in that position every day. I do not decide policy or make decisions, but I advise, trade unions, principally, on how to act in medical cases. I have no hesitation in saying that, without boasting of my experience medically. I do not go on to appeal tribunals. I decline. I do not think I am temperamentally in a position to be the judge of any man. I prefer to advise on whether a man should have a certain assessment or not. I have no doubt whatever, from my considerable experience of workmen's compensation cases, which are entirely different from pensions cases but have a bearing on this point, that the workmen's compensation issue as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington does not exist. The assessor is there, not to weigh up the evidence, Pro and con, in the court, but, with his report beforehand, to advise the judge even before the judge hears the evidence on the other side. The judge takes the opinion of his assessor, plus what he hears in court and comes to his own unbiased opinion. I believe it is unfair that any medical man should be put on these tribunals.
My hon. Friend has just said he thought that the decisions of the tribunals were fair. I have appeared at as many tribunals 1203 as he has sat on and I could tell him of case after case in which medically unfair decisions were made by the appeal tribunals on the advice of the medical men. It is much better that a medical man should not have a vote or a voice which would tend to be decisive, from his experience and knowledge, in a case in which medical evidence may be the preponderating issue. The medical man should be there as adviser, saying, "I have no issue in this, I am not concerned with your view and I take no part in the case. Quite judicially and impartially from the medical point of view I submit to you certain advice." I would also like to see the advice of medical assessors put down in writing. It is a great habit of medical men to expound views and theories by word of mouth which they would not dare to put down in writing. I have to put mine down in writing. [Laughter.] Yes, that is so. Unfortunately my employers do not allow me to give my views by word of mouth, considering the expense of my decisions when they come to an appeal court.
Medical men are not trained to give decisions. It is part of their training to give advice. As has been said to-day, many of them have prejudiced views. I am not trying to say anything hurtful about my profession; it is a very noble profession, and the best in the world, but medical men tend to have fixed views. Sometimes they have fixed views not only out of their own experience, but on the opinions of certain consultants. Time and again, I have had arguments with my medical friends and have asked: "How could you possibly come to such a view? What is your experience? How many cases of this kind have you seen?" All they could do in their reply was to mention the name of a certain consultant and to say that that was what so and so said and "I am prepared to trust his opinion." I do not believe that medical men should have that sort of opinion. I believe in men coming to their own considered opinion, having carefully sifted a case for themselves, on their own experience, ideas and judgment, rather than trust to the opinions of some celebrated consultant who may be as ignorant as they are on the particular point at issue. Because of that, I support the Amendment that medical men should not be 1204 part and parcel of tribunals, should not be members, but should be there, giving a strictly judicial opinion and, if you like, adjudicating on the medical issue, saying quite fairly, "That is my considered view and I leave it to you to come to a decision one way or the other."

§ Mr. Bellenger
It seems to me that whichever way we have it, whether we let the doctors have a vote in the tribunal or only a voice, they will quite often give decisions which, in the opinion of my hon. Friend, will be biased and prejudiced. Even if we let them act as assessors we have to assume that they will guide the tribunals to the best of their ability. The doctor may be right or wrong, but there will be two other members of the tribunal to assess whether the medical officer, or medical assessor, or medical member of the tribunal, or whatever you care to call him, is right or wrong. I have come to this conclusion: I used to think that it would not be advisable to have two medical members on tribunals which deal with the degree of assessment of the final award, but, having listened to the doctors in the Committee and the differing views expressed by them, I think that if we leave it as it is, there will be an opportunity for the legal chairman of the tribunal to come to a correct decision.

§ Mr. Magnay (Gateshead)
The governing factor in this matter of pensions appeal tribunals is that when you have only two members, the doctor, whether he is assessor, medical referee or whatever you like to call him, is there for the purpose of guiding the two members of the tribunal. These men must be absolute "duds" if they have not minds of their own and are not capable of deciding whether the advice is right or wrong. There may be a use of technical terms or the doctor, as sometimes they have to do, will deliver the decisions in Latin terms. Unless the chairman of the tribunal is a very good lawyer and remembers his Latin, the member of the medical profession may try to bemuse the tribunal by the use of Latin terms.

§ Captain Cobb
The suggestion is that there should be an assessor to do that for them.

§ Mr. Magnay
The appellant will want the tribunal to be competent to act, and to act promptly and let him know once 1205 and for all where he stands. They sit there not only as judges but as jury deciding not only on the question of law but on the questions of fact which a jury decides. I suggest that what has been proposed by the Minister of Pensions is adequate.

§ Sir W. Womersley
I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment. I have stated quite briefly that the practice of having a medical man as a voting member of the tribunal has been carried on for 25 years and has given entire satisfaction to all. I can say definitely that those I have had to consult, who represent the people who will be appealing before these tribunals, both ex-Servicemen and civilians—both representative bodies and very influential bodies—say they do not desire to have anything like the workmen's compensation practice. They much prefer the tribunal practice which we have had during the last 25 years. It will not please them if alteration is made.

§ Captain Cobb
What evidence has the Minister got of this delight at these medical tribunals?

§ Sir W. Womersley
My experience has been very extensive because I have appeared for ex-Servicemen and was connected with this work for many years before coming to the Ministry. This form of tribunal is entirely satisfactory to the appellant. I do not know of a single case where they have said that they did not want the doctor to have a vote on the tribunal. I have consulted the British Legion as regards the ex-Servicemen and the T.U.C. as regards the civilians and, in both cases, they say they prefer that the doctor should be a voting member of the tribunal. That is coming from a very influential source, people representing those who have to go before the tribunal.

Dr. Morgan
I speak with great diffidence and have no authority for saying this, but in what communication has the Minister asked the T.U.C. for an opinion on the medical tribunals?

§ Sir W. Womersley
I would remind the hon. Member that he was present at one conference I had with the T.U.C. on this matter, over the question of the Civilian Injuries Scheme. At one conference I was told, "For goodness sake keep away 1206 from county court practice as far as you can."

Dr. Morgan
That is different. I have no authority to speak for the T.U.C., I am only a part-time medical adviser. I remember well the occasion of which the Minister speaks. He asked me, rather injudiciously, for a personal memorandum which I could not have given him as I was there for the T.U.C. What I asked just now was what evidence can the Minister produce that he has asked, specifically, such an important organisation as the T.U.C. for an opinion on the medical tribunals? They may have given one, but I do not know of it.

§ Sir W. Womersley
I never made any such statement. I said I gathered opinions and that is the opinion I got from the British Legion and the T.U.C. in our conversations on the question of the scheme itself. I am perfectly entitled to make that clear to the Committee. Now we have got it clear. It has been the practice for 25 years and as far as I know has been giving perfect satisfaction to everyone. Secondly, it is the wish of those who represent the people who will have to appeal, that we shall keep as far away as possible from workmen's compensation practice. This is the only way we shall do that. If it is to be done by bringing in a medical assessor we shall be on the lines of workmen's compensation practice at once.
If the proposal applies to a doctor, why have a lawyer on the tribunal? Why not a legal assessor? I think it is necessary to have a legal member because of his legal knowledge and to have a medical member because of his medical knowledge. My hon. Friend will agree that there must be a doctor on this job because almost everything in it hinges on medical opinion. Then we have to represent the persons concerned by someone who has served in similar circumstances, who knows the position and can give advice and help. Would you deprive him of a vote and have him come in as an assessor to tell us what happened out in North Africa or wherever it was? I submit that the method we propose is a sound and proper method to adopt. It has given satisfaction to everybody, and because there is a little difference of opinion between lawyers and doctors we must not fail to judge this fairly and impartially. 1207 What is the fairest form of tribunal? I say three members representing the three different sections I have mentioned—the law, medical practice, and those who come from the same category as the appellants. That is the fairest way to do it—give them a vote, give them a responsibility.

§ Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)
Surely it is important that the Committee should be informed whether or not the denial of a vote on the tribunal to the doctor would, in any way, hamper or hinder doctors from taking part. Would they be prejudiced, as regards taking part in any tribunal, if they were relegated to a position which they did not think was in keeping with their status in relation to such a body?

§ Sir W. Womersley
Quite definitely yes.

§ Sir H. Morris-Jones
I beg to move, in page 8, line 15, at the end, to insert "of not less than seven years standing."
I do not intend to detain the Committee for very long with this Amendment. The Committee has just decided the principle that there shall be a medical representative on the tribunal. I want to see that the medical opinion shall be medical opinion of the right kind. If the Amendment is to be accepted, I will not waste the time of the Committee.

§ Sir W. Womersley
I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ Major Nield (Chester)
I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out subparagraph (a), and to insert: (a) if the claim was made in respect of a member of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces under any such Royal Warrant, Order in Council, or Order of His Majesty as is referred to in Section one of this Act, shall be a retired, discharged or demobilised member of any of the said forces who has been on active service during the war. The object of this Amendment, in conjunction with the next Amendment, is twofold. It is, first, to avoid multiplicity of tribunals and, secondly, to ensure that the Service member shall have had ex- 1208 perience of modern Service conditions. The Committee will agree that a tribunal of this kind becomes efficient through the continuity of its experience, and that by such continuity of experience it achieves uniformity. We suggest that it is unnecessary to have for the hearing of an ex-officer's case an ex-officer as well as for the hearing of the case of an ex-other rank another ex-other rank. We suggest that the Lord Chancellor's discretion to appoint a Service member should not be fettered in that way. The second part of the proposal is that the Service member sitting on the tribunal should have an experienced knowledge of modern Service conditions. Reference has been made to the difficulty of finding suitable members among those who have served in the present war. If that is the feeling of the Committee, I do not press that part of the Amendment; but I suggest that it is unnecessary to have two different tribunals to deal with an ex-officer's case and an ex-other rank's case.

§ Sir W. Womersley
I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. It will break into one of the root principles, which we have tried to establish in connection with the tribunals, that in the case of an ex-other rank there shall be a member from the other ranks as the third member on the tribunal, and that in the case of an ex-officer an ex-officer shall be appointed. It goes right round, and in the case of a woman, the third member of the tribunal will be a woman. We hope that these people will be the friends of the appellants. We want them to have some knowledge of the conditions under which these people have served, or have worked in the case of civilians; and we hope that they will be very helpful to the tribunal. We do not want to have any difficulty about this matter. I have consulted again those who are responsible for representing the people who will have to come before the tribunals, and they are very definite indeed in the view that we cannot have a mixed tribunal. I think that even the ex-officers would object to being tried by an ex-sergeant major, because in military courts they would not be tried by a sergeant-major but by another officer. It is going to cause a great deal of trouble, and the Lord Chancellor is not very happy about having to find these different categories; but it is the only fair way of dealing with the question.

§ Major Nield
In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I am quite prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Hogg
On a point of Order. I could shorten the Business of the Committee by not moving my Amendment, in page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert: or a person who is or has been a master or member of the crew of a British ship, or a person who is or has been a member of a Civil Defence Organisation. I can see that there are administrative difficulties, and, unless the Committee wishes otherwise, I will not move this Amendment.

§ Major Nield
I beg to move, in page 9, line 17, at the end, to insert: (d) the provision of free legal aid in the preparation and conduct of the appeal.

§ Mr. Hogg
On a point of Order. Is there to be an opportunity of discussing the points dealt with in an Amendment in my name providing for the discovery of documents?

§ Sir W. Womersley
That is dealt with in a later Amendment.

§ Mr. Bellenger
On a point of Order. It seems to me that the time of the Committee might be saved if we could discuss with this Amendment the other Amendment relating to expenses, which is on the Paper in the name of the Minister.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)
If that is the general wish of the Committee, I have no objection.

§ Major Nield
Under the Schedule, the Lord Chancellor is empowered to make Rules with regard to proceedings of these appeal tribunals. I suggest that he should be empowered also to grant legal aid to the appellant to enable him properly to present his case. It is a matter with which I thought my right hon. Friend might have been in sympathy.

§ The Attorney-General
The Amendment on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend, which we are also discussing, does not go quite so far as that which my hon. and gallant Friend has moved. We are against the provision of free legal aid. It is very important, everybody agrees, to preserve, on the whole, the informal character of these tribunals, so that the atmosphere should not be, either in form or in substance, 1210 that of a court of law, with two contesting sides. The picture we have in our minds, quite rightly, in regard to free legal aid is that of a poor man who has a case but is faced by a better-off man employing a skilled counsel. In such a case, people who could not afford legal representation should be able to have the services of solicitors and barristers free; otherwise, the scales are weighted. Our law courts system is based upon opposing advocates. But if you provided free legal aid for the applicant appearing before these tribunals, it might be said that the Ministry must be legally represented. Nobody would tolerate having one side represented and not the other. The Ministry will not only not be represented by legal people before the tribunals, but, as they always have done, they will give instructions to their representatives not to conduct the proceedings as advocates, but to put all the facts before the tribunals, in order to help the tribunals. Therefore, while appreciating what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, we do not believe that it would be right or helpful to provide free legal aid.
We propose to take power to give travelling expenses and allowances for the appellant attending the hearing of his appeal or, where he is not able to attend, for the relative or friend attending for him—expenses reasonably incurred in obtaining, for the purposes of the appeal, a medical report or certificate or the attendance of medical witnesses. It is very important that not only should they have personal expenses but that the tribunal shall have power to give all reasonable costs of a certificate and if necessary, of the attendance of a witness. I hope that the Committee will feel that it is satisfactory and that it would be a mistake to contemplate legal aid in all cases. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment and that the Committee will accept the Minister's.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I want to thank the Government for this generous concession. Hon. Friends of mine and myself as soon as we had examined the Draft Bill, put down an Amendment to cover the expenses of the appellant. The Government have met us very generously. As corning from one who has been a constant critic of the Government on many matters connected with war pensions, the Committee can take it that my hon. Friends and 1211 myself are completely satisfied with the way in which the Government have met us.

§ Dr. Haden Guest
I want to add my word of appreciation to what has been said, but can the Minister tell us whether there have been any number of cases of appeals before appeal tribunals in which legal representatives have appeared? My own experience has been that the informal and friendly atmosphere of appeal tribunals did not require the assistance of advocates on either side. They were tribunals to try and form a real objective opinion of the case in the interests of all concerned and that was done without legal assistance. I am glad that the Government are not willing to give free legal aid. That would merely encourage legal representation which is not required. The provision for expert evidence in the terms laid down on the Paper and for travelling expenses and allowances is an admirable one and I am sure it will facilitate the work of the tribunal considerably.

§ Sir W. Womersley
The experience was that, after the early days of the tribunals, comparatively few of the appeals came forward with either barrister or solicitor. The reason was that by that time organisations representing ex-Service men, which later were amalgamated with the British Legion, came in and were prepared to provide the assistance necessary for such cases. I want to make this announcement and I am sure that on hearing it my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment. The British Legion on this occasion have men training specially for this work to act as the advocates or friend of appellants. They have given it out publicly that this help and assistance will be given to anyone who has an appeal whether a member of the Legion or not, and it will be possible to get better representation than would be obtained by having someone who might not have studied the problem.

§ Mr. Hogg
Having regard to the last words of the right hon. Gentleman, I did not understand that we were discussing at the moment the Amendment in my name dealing with tribunal representation. If we had been, there was something I desired to say. As I understand it, that Amendment is not before the Committee.

§ The Attorney-General
No.

§ Mr. Silkin
I have two Amendments on the Paper, one dealing with expenses and the other for providing that any Rules made by the Lord Chancellor should be laid on the Table of this House. Both have been made in the Committee to-day, and I wish to add my word of appreciation. Not only have the Government met my Amendments to the letter, but they have even gone beyond the terms of them, which I very much appreciate. On the terms of representation, speaking as a lawyer, I agree with the Minister of Pensions that probably, in cases before these tribunals, the men will be better served by having representatives from the British Legion or of some similar body rather than having legal persons. If every appellant had the right to have legal aid, no doubt a very large number of them would accept that and would be legally represented. It might be undesirable for them to lay themselves open to legal representation knowing that they would get their costs. I say it reluctantly but I am sure there would be a class of legal person who would lay himself out for this particular class of work and this would be undesirable. I see nothing in the Bill which gives the right of representation to the British Legion or other bodies. I do not know whether it would be assumed that they would automatically have that right. If they are to have that right, I ask that similar bodies such as trade unions should have that right.

Dr. Morgan
My point is a small one, and as one who is generally in opposition on these matters, I would like to congratulate the Government on these Amendments. There is one part of the Amendment (3) (a ii) which reads: In the case where an appellant is unable to attend the hearing for reasons of health. Would incapacity be attributed to health? Sometimes medically, a man is well and yet he is incapacitated, say, from complete stiffness of body and limb from rheumatism. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that as incapacity?

§ The Attorney-General
I can assure the hon. Member that these words "reasons of health" would include the right to cover the case of incapacity.

Mr. Morgan
I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ Major Nield
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Hogg
I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert: Provided that such rules shall include provision for the representation of the appellant at his desire by solicitors or counsel or by the accredited representative of the British Legion or of any Trade Union, or any other fit and proper person whom he shall designate at the discretion of the tribunal. My object and that of my hon. Friends is to elicit a statement from the Government, and provided we are given an assurance that the Rules will contain the matter in the Amendment we shall not desire to insert the Amendment. We want to make it plain that the Committee recognise that all appellants before the tribunal may not be able to speak for themselves. It is all very well to talk, as some people are often doing, about the need for an informal atmosphere. I am fully in sympathy with that sort of thing, but there comes a point when an informal atmosphere sometimes causes an injustice. A man may not know how to put his case, and he does want someone to put his case for him. He is not always the stupidest man either. It is only a limited class of people who can argue for themselves. It should be definitely accepted that a man should have the right to be represented at the hearing of his appeal in order to be certain that his case is fairly presented by someone. The people who, we think, ought to have the right of audience before appeal tribunals are solicitors or counsel. The right to free legal aid is one thing, but the right to legal aid if you want it is another. It might be that a person had some particular solicitor or counsel he wanted to represent him, and we think that it is right that that should be allowed. The British Legion and the trade union and any other fit and proper person should have the right of audience before a tribunal. We all know of cases of people who like to be represented by some old friend who does not necessarily represent the organisation of which he is a member. In those circumstances, I invite the Government to make known their views.

§ The Attorney-General
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) realises, there is sufficient power under paragraph 5 (1, c) to enable Rules to be 1214 made for representation or assistance by the various categories of persons set out in his Amendment. I can give him and the Committee an assurance that Rules will be made to provide for all the categories of persons which he has set out and which, in fact, amount to no restriction of any kind.

§ Mr. Hogg
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Attorney-General
I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert: (2) Such rules shall provide for the disclosure of all such documents (whether in the possession of a government department or not) as are necessary for disposing fairly of the appeal, subject to such exceptions and conditions as the rules may prescribe in the public interest, and shall provide for making available to the appellant copies of all documents produced to the Tribunal in connection with the appeal except where the Tribunal considers it undesirable in the interests of the appellant. This Amendment deals with the very important question of the disclosure of documents. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who said in the Second Reading Debate that one way in which those who sat on this Bench. could acquire prestige and popularity was by accepting the suggestions made to them from the back benches, will, I hope, be pleased, and I trust the necessary consequences will follow, when I point out that we have accepted the two main points which he put and in which he was interested. In the Amendment which he put on the Paper he wished us to provide that the question of the disclosure of documents should be for the Lord Chancellor. We have accepted that by providing that the Rules which the Lord Chancellor makes can deal with this matter. As the Committee knows, there are Rules, which are perfectly proper, that certain classes of documents in Government Departments are privileged and cannot be compelled to be produced. My hon. Friend did not wish the public interest to be disregarded in any proper case, but he did wish that the decision as to what classes of documents should be normally subject to security considerations and so on should be disclosed should be decided by the Lord Chancellor and not by the particular Department.
1215 The other principle to which I am sure my hon. Friend attaches importance is, with one positive exception, that what goes before the tribunal should go before the man. That we have provided for. The only exception is this: You may get a case—and I think medical Members will support me here—where there is a medical report of an incurable disease which it may be contrary to the man's own interest to disclose to him. We have left the question of non-disclosure to the tribunal, not to the Minister. We intend, indeed, we hope, that the tribunal in such cases would allow a document to be seen by the man's medical officer. We did not put that in here because it is theoretically possible that a man may not have a medical officer. In 999 cases out of 1,000 he would. With regard to exceptional conditions, you might get in part of a document something which was highly secret. For instance, there may be an incident which took place in convoy. I do not find it very easy to imagine that anything of a security nature would be relevant to the actual decision, but there is power in the Schedule to see that all proper secrecy is preserved in these matters. If documents cannot be produced on security grounds, then the tribunals will not see them. Then, of course, there is no intention that confidential minutes of opinion should be disclosed. It might be unfair to the man that they should be. Reports of previous courts of inquiry would be documents which would go before the tribunal and before the man.
The Rules will come before this House under a later Amendment; I do not want to explain in detail what they may contain, indeed, I do not know. The important point is that everything that goes before the tribunal goes to the man and that the Lord Chancellor will consider the public interest, which will be reflected in the Rules. There might be documents which ought to be before the tribunal but which it might be undesirable to discuss and read in open court. My noble Friend has in mind a possible provision by which you could have a limited in camera hearing which would enable documents which should not be disclosed in open court, to be disclosed. My noble Friend is anxious that all material which is relevant should be put before the tribunal and the man.

§ Earl Winterton
I presume that when the Attorney-General refers to matters which could not be properly disclosed the Government will make a differentiation between the practice which must necessarily prevail in war-time and that which should prevail after the war?

§ The Attorney-General
Yes, if a document was so secret that it could not be disclosed, I imagine that the practice would be unlikely to go on after the cessation of hostilities.

§ Dr. Haden Guest
I agree that there are certain documents about a man's condition which it would be undesirable in his own interest that he should learn of. I understand that we are going to have a Rule that such documents can be shown if there is some representative, medical or otherwise, of the man.

§ The Attorney-General
The Rule will make it clear that the tribunal will have power to show it to the man's medical adviser, and I hope they will do it.

§ Mr. Hogg
I should like to welcome what the Attorney-General has said and to assure him that the consequences that he asks for will duly follow. This has been a happy example of the use of Parliamentary procedure. Not only have suggestions from the back benches been accepted, but, even when they have not, they have stimulated the Government to give good reasons for their decisions which would not otherwise have been elicited.

§ Sir W. Womersley
I beg to move, in page 9, line 43, at the end, to insert: 8. In the case of appeals heard in Wales the appellant or any witness may, if he considers that he would otherwise be at a disadvantage by reason of his natural language of communication being Welsh, use the Welsh language and rules made under this Schedule may provide for the employment of interpreters of the English and Welsh languages for the purpose of any such appeal. This is to meet the point as to the provision of Welsh interpreters

§ Sir H. Morris-Jones
I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the proposal put forward from representatives of all parties from Wales. It will meet cases of hardship of young men from rural areas who are acquainted with both English and Welsh, but are more accustomed to express themselves in their own language.

§ Mr. David Adams
Before agreeing to the Schedule, I should like to suggest that insufficient consideration has been given to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) to insert, after "practitioners": of not less than seven years' standing.

An hon. Member
It was accepted

§ Mr. Adams
I am aware that the Minister accepted it

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member cannot raise it as an Amendment. If he likes, he can tell the Government how nice it was to accept the principle.

§ Mr. David Adams
Cannot I protest against the decision

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Member cannot discuss the Amendment now

§ Mr. Adams
Am I not allowed to say that it is a bad thing

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No, I am afraid that is impossible. It has been accepted, and it is part of the Bill

§ Mr. Adams
I thought it would be competent for anyone who disagreed to say so.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No, the hon. Member cannot deal with the Amendment as an Amendment or object to the Amendment. He can, on the Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill," say that the Schedule is improved or otherwise by the insertion of certain Amendments, but he must not discuss the Amendment in detail.

§ Mr. Adams
I want to say that I feel that the Amendment leaves the Schedule in a weaker condition than it ought to be; indeed, that the Amendment has been made unnecessarily. I should like to know why so long a period has been stipulated in the case of medical practitioners when the condition does not apply to any other member of the tribunal. The Minister by accepting this is probably excluding many brilliant younger men. It is well known that medical practitioners of seven years or more standing are not necessarily the best persons to be selected.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am sorry to have to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but he really must not discuss the Amendment.

§ Mr. Adams
I have made my protest.