HC Deb 10 November 1920 vol 134 cc1326-34

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House, do now adjourn."

Mr. NEWBOULD

The matter to which I wish to draw attention is one of interest to all sections of the House, and, as I am, aware that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall be as brief as possible. The House knows that the final tribunal in all matters of pensions is the statutory Appeal Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Minister of Pensions has no control or influence over this tribunal whatsoever. He is entirely unable to answer in an authoritative manner any questions that may be put to him with regard to it by Members of this House; in fact, his one stereotyped answer to all such questions is that he has no control and no power in regard to it. That being so, it will, of course, be realised that, in raising this matter I am not in any sense criticising the Minister or his Department. I do wish, however, to bring some pressure to bear, through this House, on the Ministry or on the Prime Minister in regard to the inquiry which is now taking place into the machinery and administration of the Ministry of Pensions. The ex-service man who has a grievance docs not differentiate between that portion of the machinery of pensions which is outside the control of the Minister and that portion which is within his control. The ex-service man or the dependant takes his case through all the processes which are available in the Ministry of Pensions, and thence, possibly, to the Appeal Tribunal; but, if he is dissatisfied with the result, he does not differentiate. I know that it is not the fault of the Ministry; it is the fault of the Appeal Tribunal, over which the Ministry has no control; but he merely blames the Ministry, and I think he is quite right in doing so.

I ask that the inquiry which the Minister has set up into the machinery and administration of his Department should be extended to bring within its scope the Lord Chancellor's Appeal Tribunal, and I do so on four grounds: first of all, on the ground of delay; secondly, on the ground of decision; thirdly, on the ground of justice to the Ministry, who are blamed for the deficiencies of the Appeal Tribunal, if there are any; and, fourthly, on the ground that any inquiry into the administration of pensions is not complete unless it comprises the whole of the machinery. With regard to the question of delay, we were told the other day that the average time which elapses between an appeal being lodged and its being heard is one month. Many of us have had cases in which the period has been very much longer than that. There is one very good reason why delay in this matter, if avoidable, should be avoided, and that is that this Appeal Tribunal is not reached until all the other processes have been exhausted, and it often takes 6, 9, or even 12 months to exhaust all the other questions, and, in the process of exhaustion, the patience of the applicant is exhausted also. If there is further delay before it reaches the tribunal after it has left the Ministry, that should and can be avoided. I have many instances of delay, and I will give a case over which I had some correspondence with the Ministry within the last week or so. The case having left the Ministry, and the applicant being advised by myself to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, went to the local Pensions Tribunal in order to get the papers to lodge the application. It was the case of a widow, and she was told that the final decision of the Ministry had not yet reached the local tribunal, and therefore she could not lodge an appeal. I had to write to the Ministry asking them why they had not informed the local appeal tribunal and the widow herself, as to their decision, so that she might get on with her appeal. Another week elapsed before I had a reply from the Ministry, in which they said they had now informed the local appeal tribunal that if the widow would go again she could lodge an appeal. That is entirely unnecessary delay. A decision arrived at in the Ministry ought to be automatically and at once conveyed to the persons concerned so that there should be no delay. The appeal has been lodged, but there will be at least a month and possibly more before it can be heard.

In regard to the second point I wish to make, the class of case to which I want to refer is where there is a conflict of medical testimony; I mean where the applicant for a pension has medical certificates from specialists which are at variance with the verdict of the medical officers of the Ministry or the tribunal. I want to gave one case, over which I had an enormous amount of correspondence, covering a long period of time, with the Ministry—the case of Lieut. Robinson. This man first joined the Regular Army, at the age of eighteen, in 1894. At the end of his three years' service he extended it to twelve, and, of course, was medically examined and found fit before he was able to do so. At the end of twelve years he again extended to twenty-one, and was again medically examined and found fit. He was medically examined on many other occasions when he went on active service, both in Egypt and in India. He completed twenty-one years' service with the Colours on 23rd October, 1916, in the middle of the Great War, and took his discharge, but, owing to the appeals that were then being made, he joined up again almost immediately, in less than two months, as an Al man, and served for the remainder of the War. He was discharged at the end of the War as a C3 man through deafness, and he has been refused, having gone right through all the processes, and finally through the Appeal Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor, a disability pension on the ground that the deafness was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. This man served for 25½ years in the Army. He was only out of the Army for some six weeks in the middle of the War. He joined at the age of 18: he is now discharged as a C3 man, having re-engaged in 1916 as an A1 man. He is very deaf, and he is told that it is not attributable in any sense to military service. He has gone to the trouble and expense of seeing various specialists. He has a certificate from a well-known Wimpole Street specialist, which says in effect that the deafness is, in his opinion, attributable to military service. He has two other certificates to the same effect from the assistant surgeon to the London Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, and another from the surgeon of the Westminster Hospital for Diseases of the Ear and Throat. The man never will and never can be satisfied with the result. There is a conflict of medical testimony which at least demonstrates a doubt as to whether his disability is due to military service or not. Under those circumstances, I am not surprised that this man is walking about with a grievance, and I maintain that in cases of that sort the man should have the benefit of the doubt. I am appealing to the Prime Minister, if the Minister of Pensions has not the power, to approach the Lord Chancellor and to suggest to him that he should invite the Committee of Inquiry set up by the Ministry of Pensions to extend their inquiry into this final appeal tribunal. If the Prime Minister does so, the Lord Chancellor must at once accede to his request. He must realise that an inquiry into the machinery and administration of pensions is practically futile unless it includes the whole of the machinery. Therefore, I hope that the Prime Minister will take the course which I suggest and thereby remove many of the grievances, real or imaginary, which are in the minds of many ex-service men and their dependants.

Major BARKER

I can understand this matter being brought forward, because I know that very much suffering has been involved by the delays of the Appeal Tribunal. One must also appreciate the fact that the Ministry of Pensions is not altogether to blame. The disabled men, the National Association of Discharged Soldiers, the Federation, and the Comrades of the Great War specially asked—I am speaking of the evidence before the Select Committee on Pensions—that the Ministry of Pensions should not have the power to deal with these cases of appeal. I do not know how much blame for the delay is due to the Ministry of Pensions and how much is due to the Lord Chancellor; but if the Ministry could get into touch with the Lord Chancellor and ask him to hurry up the appeals the problem would, to a certain extent, be solved. I will give the House a case of delay which has been brought to my notice from Yorkshire. A pension was disallowed in June, 1919, and an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal was made last March. That appeal has not been heard yet, and Williamson, the man who appealed, has had to apply for parish relief. These are the sort of delays which are irritating disabled men. I am certain that if the Ministry of Pensions would got into touch with the Lord Chancellor and ask him to push forward these appeals the delays would be fewer. I do not know whether the Minister of Pensions appreciates exactly the hardship that results from these delays. When he spoke to the Lancashire Members the other day he said that three or four per cent, of the whole of the pensioners was the extent of the delay. Three or four per cent, on the number of pensions in the country would represent a great deal of suffering. Most of these appeals that have to go before the Appeals Tribunal are brought forward by men who went into the Army in no unfit condition. If the Minister of Pensions would only say that a man who went into the Army fit for service in any capacity at all is entitled to a pension if he comes out unfit for work, that would be satisfactory, but he will not say that at present. If a man, who was fit to be called up to serve, is unfit when he comes cut he ought to have a pension.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon)

I am sorry to intervene while other Members are anxious to speak, but I wish to extend the courtesy of a reply to the important point that has been raised. I am not prepared to answer without notice as to individual cases. There are 2,000,000 files at the. Issue Office. I do not carry all these things in my head. All I can say at the moment about the case of Robinson is that it is clearly a case which was examined on its merits by the Ministry, and he was not considered entitled to a pension, and afterwards this case was tried by an impartial, independent tribunal, and they agreed with that decision. When two bodies independent of each other both considered the case with the same result, the presumption is that there is something more in it than the hon. Member has had at his disposal in presenting the case.

Mr. NEWBOULD

That is why I am asking that the inquiry should be extended.

Major TRYON

The hon. Member is anxious that the Inquiry should include the working of the independent tribunal. I cannot accede to that request, because it is a Departmental Committee put up by the Minister himself with the object of doing everything within the working of the Ministry to improve the machinery. I cannot put up a Departmental Committee to inquire into the proceedings of a body set up by the House of Commons over us and independent of us. The cases, when they reach tribunals, are settled, on an average, within a month, which is about the time that it takes the County Court to deal with somewhat similar cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. If there are serious delays, as there must be in some cases, the delays to which my hon. Friend refers would be those which occur before the tribunal gets the case; that is, delays when the case is still with the Ministry. Those delays we are anxious to do all we can to avoid, and the inquiry will include the delays in this and all other eases so long as they are in the control of the Ministry. Therefore the particular delays complained of will form the subject of inquiry by the Committee, of which I hope to be chairman.

With regard to the whole position of the independent tribunal, there has been misunderstanding, not only in the country, but, as I see from some of the questions, even by Members of this House. This tribunal was set up in response to a strong demand throughout the country on the part of ex-service men, mass meetings, and organisations of ex-service men. It was recommended by a Select Committee, over which my hon. Friend presided with such great advantage to all concerned. In the Act of Parliament its decisions are enforced upon the Pensions Minister. Therefore, we claim, and my hon. Friend conceded, that it is not fair for the House of Commons to take these cases out of our hands and to say that while the appeal shall be absolutely independent of the Ministry, we should be blamed for proceedings entirely outside our control.

Captain LOSEBY

Is the hon. And gallant Gentleman aware that that is an entirely new doctrine that we have heard in this House within the last month—that the prerogative of the Minister was taken away? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that it was distinctly announced shortly after the Select Committee reported, by the Minister, that the prerogative of the Minister had not been taken away?

Major TRYON

I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. This was set up over the Pensions Minister.

Captain LOSEBY

The Minister himself stated, I think, that he was doubtful, only a week ago.

Major TRYON

; I think his opinion was that he had not these powers. These things are not settled by the Ministry; it is an independent tribunal. With reference to the justice with which these appeals are settled, let me give a few details. When a large number of cases are being tried, and you express dissatisfaction with a particular body which is settling them, you put it aside and substitute for it some entirely different body. If on doing that you find an enormous change in the results, you would, I think, be entitled to argue, with some probability of being right, that one body or the other had been wrong, that one of the two had been either too stiff or too free in its decisions. The tribunal, which was in some way connected with the Ministry, settled cases and granted appeals at the rate of 34 per cent. Later on a new tribunal was set up. I admit that the cases change. They increase in difficulty. Instead of 34 per cent., the independent tribunal granted 30.7 per cent. There was, therefore, hardly any change in passing from one form of tribunal to another. My belief is that both types of tribunals dispensed straightforward justice to the applicants. With regard to the number of applications which are successful, I submit that now we are dealing with far more difficult cases. They are cases sometimes concerned with events of four and five years ago. We have cases of men ill now, and they very properly seek to establish connection between that illness and some of the events of the War. They are most difficult cases. Take the last six months. I have woked out the figures and this is the proportion: Of 80 cases—difficult, most of them—we granted 60 straight off. That leaves 20 unsettled. Of those 20 remaining, 17 of the applicants accepted the decision and did not appeal; but three did appeal, and of those three which appealed one was successful. So that out of all the difficult cases coining up only one in eighty is granted by the Appeal Tribunal. I put that to the House for what it is worth. The advantage which I think we gain from this independent tribunal is this: There is the analogy of the workmen's compensation cases which go to the County Court. It was thought by the men in certain cases that there ought to be some outside body, not the Government or the employer, so to speak, or the person who had to find the money; some independent tribunal to decide their cases. An independent tribunal was established. The fact that it has not changed the results is not a fault of the tribunal, but is a tribute to the justice which had already been done. We gain by these tribunals in the confidence which we hope they give to the men. I think they ought to have confidence in them. They consist of a barrister or solicitor of seven years' standing, selected by the Lord Chancellor, and a medical man specially selected for this work. That is a point not sufficiently known. The third and very important member is a disabled officer or man. That is a court independent of the Government and of the parties who have to find the money. I submit it is a court whose independence or justice cannot lightly be challenged.

Major BARKER

Who selects the members?

Major TRYON

That is done by the Lord Chancellor. We have nothing to do with it.

Mr. PENNEFATHER

How many tribunals are there?

Major TRYON

There are thirteen now, and there will soon be fourteen, be cause we found that Scotland needed another tribunal. Therefore, I suggest that what is wanted is, not a change in machinery, but if any part of the country is getting behind with its appeal cases, the simple thing is to add another tribunal. I think the hon. Member for West; Leyton (Mr. Newbould) was not doing a very good service to the ex-service men when he said in the House the other day: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a case where there is a doubt the Appeal Board appointed by the Lord Chancellor invariably gives it against the applicant and not in his favour?

Mr. NEWBOULD

That is my experience in cases that come under my personal notice.

Major TRYON

That does not extend to 13 courts settling 400 cases a week. My hon. Friend's words extended to them I all, because he used the term "invariably." If he said he knew of one or two cases where justice had not been done we should have accepted his honest opinion, but in saying what he did say he was doing a very poor service to the cause which we all want to serve, namely, to gain the confidence of the ex-service men in the justice which is given them by the nation.

Mr. HOGGE

We realise the difficulties of the machinery, but it is a question of principle. The hon. Member for Sowerby put it in more elaborate words, that the one principle on which pensions ought to be fixed is this: that, if a, man was fit to fight he was fit to pension, and no machinery ought to turn down any man who was accepted for service as absolutely fit. If my hon. Friend could put that in operation we should solve a very great number of these cases.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'clock.