§ 23. Mr. BEAUMONTasked the Minister of Pensions what is the difference between his policy and that of his predecessor with regard to the seven years' limit for applications?
Mr. ROBERTSI would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the House on the 18th November. The primary points of difference in procedure in dealing with this class of application are that no claim will be rejected solely on the ground of the time limit; that every applicant will be invited to state his case and to give evidence in support of it in response to specific inquiries tending to elucidate the claim; that full consideration (including medical examination wherever necessary) will be given to all evidence submitted, and war pensions committees have been instructed to consider and investigate complaints from applicants whose claims have been rejected and to report specifically on them to the Ministry; and, finally, that in the determination of all cases of material doubt or difficulty independent medical experts nominated by the presidents of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons will be regularly associated with the Ministry.
§ Mr. BEAUMONTIs it not a, fact that that is exactly the same policy as that of the late Government, and that the applicants have been able to find no difference whatever?
Mr. ROBERTSIn answer to the latter part of the question, time alone can show 1887 the results. With regard to the first part, when I gave the original answer, I deliberately pointed out that what we were proposing to do was an extension and an amendment of the procedure adopted by the late Government.
§ Sir K. WOODHas the right hon. Gentleman received any communication from the British Legion expressing dissatisfaction with the policy and attitude of the Government?
§ Sir K. WOODIs the right hon. Gentleman going to make any reply?
§ Mr. BEAUMONTIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at an early date.