HC Deb 22 July 1943 vol 391 cc1114-31

Amendment proposed [1st July]: In page 1, line 8, to leave out from "Minister," to the end of line 15.—[Mr. Hogg.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'to,' in line 14, stand part of the Clause."

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

This Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was under discussion when the Committee Debate was adjourned. In that discussion, I can say without offence or provocation, there were certain cross-currents which were affecting most hon. Members, and one of them was a feeling of dissatisfaction that we should discuss this Bill till the House had had an opportunity of seeing the proposals for alteration of the White Paper. That has now happened, and I would like to make a few observations on this Amendment and on the effect that it would have; and not only that, but on the question of principle that lies behind it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting down this Amendment and raising this point, because it enables me to explain the broad and relevant facts which affect this point.

The Bill sets out specifically the various matters on which an appeal can be made to the appellate tribunal. That was the procedure followed in the last war and which is followed in the Bill. The Amendment would enable anyone who was dissatisfied with any decision of the Minister to go to the appeal tribunal. Under the Royal Warrant a wide discretionary power is conferred on the Minister for extending benefits in special circumstances beyond the laid-down limits. A very good example is the power to grant pensions in certain circumstances under paragraphs 51 and 52 of the Royal Warrant to what are called "other dependants." Dependants primarily, for the purposes of the pensions Warrant, do not include grandparents, grandchildren, stepmothers or brothers and sisters. Probably everybody would agree that is a quite prima facie rule, but there is power under the paragraph to which I have referred, if pecuniary needs can be shown, to extend what are obviously the normal and proper limits to cases of other dependants.

There are many other cases where benefits can be extended if need can be shown and if financial circumstances justify it. Educational grants can be continued. We believe, and my right hon. Friend has a fairly clear impression, that on the whole the exercise of these various discretions has been wisely and generously carried out and has given satisfaction. If that is right, we think that it is in the interests of the people affected that you should retain the flexibility of an administrative discretionary power rather than do what you would have to do if there was to be an appeal, as I shall show in a moment, namely, reduce these various powers to some sort of code so that you could lay down principles which could be applied on appeal. I think that is right and that my hon. Friend would probably agree that while the principle can be too absolutely stated that you cannot have an appeal against a discretionary power, broadly speaking that is true and has certainly been laid down by the courts. I think it would be found in most of these cases that if you were to give the right of appeal, you would have to define with more precision than is necessary at present what constitutes need and what constitutes incapacity for support and so on. A more rigid set of rules would have to be introduced which would probably work against the individual. I am not greatly enamoured of the dictum that bad cases make bad law, but undoubtedly there is something in the view that if you are likely to be confronted with special hard circumstances in individual cases, it is better to have an administrative discretion than a set of rules.

Another point I think the Committee will appreciate is that even if one came to the conclusion that it was desirable to have an appeal on any or all of these other matters, the appellate tribunals set up by this Bill would, I think, not be appropriate bodies. I think everybody knows the great demands being made at the moment on the medical profession. Each of the tribunals contains a medical man. It would probably be impossible to justify, even if you could find enough of them, making it necessary for a medical man to decide whether a particular person is dependant on the soldier who has been injured or lost his life.

There was one point on which no appeal could be brought under the Bill as introduced. It was referred to by my hon. Friend and by others, both in the Second Reading Debate and in the discussion the other day. That was the question whether there should not be introduced into the Bill the right of appeal against what is called an interim decision by the Minister on the degree of disablement, carrying with it, of course, a decision whether the pension is to be 40 per cent., 60 per cent. or 80 per cent., etc., of the full amount that can be allowed. No provision made for that in the last war nor in the Bill as introduced.

We have down later on the Order Paper Amendments which in fact introduce, subject to certain conditions, this right of appeal. It would probably be out of Order to go into those matters in detail, but I think, subject to your Ruling, Major Milner, it would be desirable if I said a word or two about them on this Amendment, because, after all, it was one of the main points put forward in favour of the principle lying behind this Amendment. I will try to steer a course of not referring in detail to them, and I am sure that if we get a little wide we will not refer on a later occasion to what we have been able to discuss now.

I would first of all like to tell the Committee that under the present procedure, apart from any right of appeal, these cases are under constant review. I think it is right that that should be made clear on behalf of the Ministry of Pensions. It is not the case that when a man comes out the Minister says "40 per cent." or whatever it is and will think no more about the case until the final assessment is made. The cases are under constant and regular review at intervals of six to 12 months, even though the man himself makes no application. If a man himself writes in and complains that his circumstances have changed, or got worse, or that he is not satisfied with what has been done, he is at once re-examined by another medical board, who report to my right hon. Friend. It is right that that should be made clear, that these cases are under constant administrative review. [Interruption]—as my hon. Friend says, up and down. We hope in many cases down, that the man gets better.

On the other hand, we did feel that there was great force in the argument which was put. Here in the Bill, it was said, you agree that when a final assessment is made which will settle on 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. or whatever it is, the man can appeal, whereas he cannot in the case of an interim assessment which settles that percentage for a period which may be long, because everybody agrees that final assessments are not wanted too soon, even if the administrative machinery could cope with them. There may be a man whose condition has become fairly stable at, say, 40 per cent, or 60 per cent. If that was the case when a final assessment was made, he could appeal, whereas for a considerable period, in the case of the interim period he cannot. We think there is considerable force in that and have put down later Amendments that there should be provision for such an appeal.

I should explain that we are asking for power to suspend the right of these appeals. We first of all suggest that the right of appeal should not exist until two years after the original assessment. That I commend to the Committee as a good idea, because it is in the early months that the condition is mostly variable, and the Minister of Pensions will be keeping the case under constant review. An appeal is not needed when a man is to be looked at again in three months or six months. We also seek to be empowered to suspend bringing into force the right of appeal simply because it is impracticable for administrative reasons to deal with the accumulations of entitlement appeals and interim assessment appeals simultaneously. I am sure that the Committee will agree that entitlement claims should come first—they are the really important matter—and that they realise that while it is right and proper that there should be the right of interim assessment appeal, they would criticise us very much if those appeals came in front of entitlement appeals. My right hon. Friend, having conceded the principle, will bring it into operation as soon as possible, and he can be stimulated on the matter by Questions in the House.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

Would the Attorney-General be good enough to point out where that point appears in the Government Amendment—where the suspension comes?

The Attorney-General

In the fourth Amendment on page 388. What is done is to use words which show that the present suspensory power in respect of assessment appeals also apply to this. That is how it is done. I hope I have covered the points, and I hope that my hon. Friend and those with him will not press this Amendment. We have considered this point, we have conceded in principle the major point made, and we really feel that it would be better to leave discretionary cases where they are.

Mr. Hogg

I do not want anything I say to appear to cast any doubt whatever on the gratitude which I am sure the Committee will feel to the Government and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for the great advance they have made from their attitude on the previous occasion. But there are one or two matters to which I feel the Committee will want attention drawn as showing that the Government even yet have not gone quite far enough. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will not resent the careful scrutiny we give to this matter. Although we are all of us anxious that the Bill should be carried through to its conclusion in the shortest possible time, we do, I think, feel that this is the moment to get things right, that any later moment would be one at which the administrative difficulties would be very much greater than now. Therefore, even at the expense of a little time, it is worth while looking at these provisions carefully and seeing whether or not they are yet quite right, We originally put forward on principle these Amendments which we are discussing, and the principle we had in mind was that where the right is given to a subject the appropriate tribunal ultimately to decide that right is not executive but judicial, in this case the appellant tribunal set up by the Measure, and as a general principle we are not prepared to depart from that statement.

We do not, it is quite true, fully appreciate what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has just drawn our attention to, namely, that there are a number of discretionary powers in the Minister with which perhaps it would be unwise to interfere by way of appeal. That may be so, but none the less we do not feel that the Attorney-General has fully appreciated the strength of the case against it. It would have been perfectly easy, had he so desired it, to put in a proviso to this Clause excluding matters in which there was discretion. Instead of that, the Clause proceeds with a very narrow statement as to the grounds on which it is possible to appeal. One of those grounds, but only one, refers to the degree of assessment, the degree of disablement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that the new Amendment which stands in his name will to some extent meet the criticism which arose on that point. I should prefer with your permission, Mr. Williams, to reserve my criticism of that new Clause until such time as it is moved. I quite agree that to some extent our criticism has been met by the proposed new Clause. On the other hand, it has not been quite met. Let me put to the learned Attorney-General this question. Suppose you get a lady claiming as the widow of a disabled man. All of us who have practised in the courts know that once in every so many marriages a real doubt occurs as to the validity of the marriage. Sometimes these doubts are very difficult to resolve, and they cause a great deal of heartburning, and sometimes a great expenditure of judicial time.

This is not a question of discretion, but a question of entitlement. There is no right of appeal for such a person. Suppose there came a question as to whether a son was the legitimate son of a man who was claiming a pension. There is no right of appeal on such a point, although the Minister of Pensions on the Second Reading clearly said that where there was a question of entitlement there ought to be a right of appeal. We cannot regard this situation as wholly satisfactory. We think that there should be on all matters of right, as distinct from matters of discretion, an appeal to a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. There is nothing in what the Attorney-General has said to indicate that that right is being given. The Attorney-General has indicated that in his view the appeals tribunals set up by this Act would not be suitable for questions of that kind. Let it be so. But the right answer is not that you should therefore take away the right of appeal altogether, but that you should allow such questions to be referred to an appropriate tribunal. Unless some such concession were made on a subsequent stage I should feel that the concession of the Government was by no means adequate. There is another matter, of a more technical kind, to which we referred on a former occasion. It was first raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller), who pointed out that as the Bill is drafted the Government could cut and come again, but that the appellant could not do so, reading Clause I with the later Clause respecting finality of appeals.

The Attorney-General

We are dealing with that by a later Amendment, which will make it clear that on matters in respect of which there is a right of appeal the Minister cannot cut and come again.

Captain Cobb (Preston)

Surely that Amendment refers only to mariners and pilots, not to men in the Fighting Services?

The Attorney-General

I will explain that when we come to it.

Mr. Hogg

In the circumstances, perhaps we had better reserve that point, and find out whether it is adequately covered when the Amendment comes before the Committee. I want to keep as general as possible. I am not yet persuaded that the right of appeal is wide enough. I do not want to appear unreasonable. I shall be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment if any reasonable concession is made by the Government, or if it is the sense of the Committee that I should do so; but at present I do not think the Government's case has been made out, and I should like further concessions to be made.

Major Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

I should like to support what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has said. I am not in favour of limiting the Minister's discretion where discretion should properly be exercised, but, as the hon. Member has said, there are many questions here which are questions solely and simply of law. I support his appeal to the Government to consider whether those questions of law could not be brought before some form of tribunal competent to deal with them. I am grateful to the Government for dealing with the question of appeals from interim assessments. But I am not satisfied that they have given as much as I had hoped they would. I do not like the position that a man's right of appeal against an interim assessment should riot arise until the Minister chooses to bring that particular section of the Act into force. It seems to me that you are giving a right the exercise of which will depend upon the manner in which the Minister exercises his discretion. I, too, would like to reserve such observations as I have to make upon that proposal until the Amendment comes to be discussed. I am glad that the Government have seen fit to recognise the right—although I think it is too qualified—to appeal against interim assessments, which may exist for a very long time indeed.

The Attorney-General

I put fairly fully before the Committee the reasons which have led us to think that it would be a mistake to accept the principle of this Amendment. I think my hon. Friend will agree that it could not be accepted as it stands, because it would wreck the Bill. With regard to legitimacy, I think that there is already power for a child to get a declaration of legitimacy from the court; so that is already provided for. With regard to the widow, there are certain classes of proceedings where that matter may arise, but I will assume for the moment that there is no accessible proceeding for somebody to get a declaration merely to prove that she is legally married. I will not go into that. You might have some special provision for going to a court. It would be an expensive matter if it were a doubtful case. My right hon. Friend cannot remember a case of that sort arising, but I cannot conceive that if such a case arose the Ministry would not give the man the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, it has to give him the benefit of all doubts. No Minister is going to withhold a pension because there may be some legal doubt as to whether a marriage comes within the jurisdiction. If you put in a special provision, which rather invites the Ministry to say that if there is a doubt they must take a summons before the court, it will not bring any practical advantage, and might do some harm, by suggesting that the Minister should take the matter to court, instead of acting generously, without scrutinising doubts which might occur to a legal mind. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. We have considered it, with every desire to meet the point to the extent which we thought right, but at the same time a desire to see that what we thought was valuable to the man, the discretionary element, remained where it was.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)

In the Debate last week I asked that the qualifying words in "directly attributable" and "aggravated … to a material extent" should be omitted from the Bill and the Warrant. Between then and now an Amendment has been put down by the Minister to leave them out of the Bill. I ask for an assurance that the new words to be substituted will be matched by corresponding words in the Royal Warrant.

The Attorney-General

Yes, that is so.

Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)

When we originally debated this Amendment, I was attracted by its terms. Even now, I and my hon. Friends want to give appellants the widest possible right of appeal, but there is no doubt that the greater number of appeals will be on the two grounds mentioned in the Clause. There may be other cases, although the Minister of Pensions says that he has not known of other cases which arise, and I do not think we should be doing right if we rejected those cases. It seems that we are working in the air, if I may use the expression, because there is no doubt that on the substantial cases the Government have attempted to meet our point of view. Having an Amendment down on the question of appeal in regard to the degree of disability, I feel that the Government have tried to meet us, although whether they have gone the whole distance that we want them to go remains to be seen when we discuss that Amendment. Therefore, I think that as in the Warrant itself there is provision for pensions to what are coloquially termed unmarried wives, I think we would not be wise in pressing this Amendment, and that we should await the Debates on the later Amendments. Then, if we think that the Government have not met us as completely as they ought, we should ask them on subsequent stages to go further.

Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)

I think the Bill should be as wide as possible. I was not greatly impressed by what the Attorney-General said, as to whether those words would create a difficulty in connection with the discretionary rights of the Minister. I think that appeals in those cases would be very few. I agree, however, that an attempt is being made by the Government to meet us. I do not wish to be unreasonable. I probably would not have spoken now had not the Attorney-General, after consultation with the Minister, said that he did not know of a case where a widow had been refused a pension because the validity of the marriage had been called into question. I do not know a case in connection with the Ministry of Pensions, but I remember the Scottish Department of Health taking exception on those grounds and the case having to go to the High Court for decision. What one Department does, another Department might do. I agree with other hon. Members that an attempt is being made by the Government to meet us on this matter, but I still think that the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hogg

I feel that the sense of the Committee is in favour of my asking leave to withdraw the Amendment; therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "directly."

This is the first of a series of Amendments that follow in this Bill to implement the new conditions that were announced in the alterations and amendments which will be made in the Royal Warrant as outlined in the White Paper, and I hope hon. Members will accept them and also accept my assurance that this will bring the Bill into line with the new conditions in the Royal Warrant.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1 line 10, leave out from "to," to "and," in line 11, and insert "war service."

In line 13 leave out from the beginning to "and," in line 14, and insert: existed before or arose during war service and has been.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "decision," to insert: specifying that it is made on that ground. In the discussion the other day it was said that a man got a communication from the Ministry which did not make it clear upon the face of it on which ground the pension was rejected. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) which suggests that we should insert: together with a short statement of his reasons therefor. There are two points there. There is the point which we are meeting in which in this and in the other Clauses the Minister will make the matter quite clear. In Clause 1 he has to be satisfied that it is neither "attributable" nor "aggravated." That is simple, but in other Clauses it might be one reason or it might be another. He has to state his case.

My hon. Friend suggested something a little more than that—a short statement of the reasons. We feel a difficulty about that. In these cases, which very often depend on medical considerations, once you started giving a sort of resumé that the Chairman would give if he gave, as a judge does in an ordinary case, a sort of summing up, you would want, first of all, to have a rather skilled man to do it, and it is also not an easy thing to do. Therefore, we feel that as far as the Statute is concerned we must stick to simply indicating the reason. The Committee should bear this in mind—and it is very important—that though a man will only get, at this stage, a statement of the reason, if he is dissatisfied he can put in a notice of appeal. I do not want to advise everybody to do that, but if he puts in a notice of appeal he will then, under the rules, get a full statement of his case. If a man is dissatisfied he could get, by putting in a notice of appeal, not merely a short statement of reasons, but a full statement of his case. When he looks at that he may say, "I have never realised that before, and I will not go on with my appeal." At any rate he can, by the automatic process of putting in a notice of appeal, get a full statement, and I think that that is really satisfactory. We might easily get into difficulties if we tried to set people compiling documents which purported to be a short statement of reasons. I think that the best way is that the man should be told the reason, and, if he is not satisfied, he can get a full authoritative statement of the facts of his case.

Mr. Hogg

I am not sure whether the learned Attorney-General has gone far enough here, although what he has said amounts to an advance. What we had in mind in putting down our Amendment was that the man should be in a position to know in informal language the real nature of the case he had to meet. We cannot believe that it is as difficult to prepare such a statement as the Attorney-General seems to think. We did not have in mind a formal plea but the sort of document that a police inspector has to write out about 50 times a day, in which the short particulars of the case is put against the man charged with a criminal offence. If a police inspector can do it as a mere matter of routine, I would have thought that a highly paid and highly trained member of the staff of the Ministry of Pensions would be in a position to do exactly the same thing. I am not altogether satisfied with the rider which the Attorney-General has made to the effect that, if a man puts in a notice of appeal, he can get something more. What the man wants to know is whether to put in an appeal or not. It may be that once he sees the Minister's reasons he finds that they are unanswerable, but it is a direct invitation for people to put in frivolous notices of appeal. I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider his decision—I do not ask for what we ask in our Amendment—and give at least as much as an accused person is entitled to know in the ordinary course of events in police court proceedings.

Mr. Stephen

I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I have had a lot of pension cases to deal with and the receipt of a form with words scored out there and something inserted elsewhere makes it difficult for the ordinary person to understand. If the person concerned was given a letter in which the case was dealt with briefly by the Ministry possibly there would not be so much need for a statement. These printed forms which the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions send out are not satisfactory documents and I hope that the Attorney-General and the Minister of Pensions will consider doing something more than they are doing here. I gather that claimants will still receive a printed form saying "not attributable" or "not aggravated," and the person who gets it simply does not understand it. Something much more human and kindly than those stereotyped forms is necessary and I hope that the Minister will make some real concession in this matter.

Mr. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals)

I also ask the Attorney-General to reconsider this matter. We have often had these cases in Scotland, and the Ministry of Labour has had to modify these forms. The Ministry used to issue documents marked "misconduct" which might mean drunkenness, debauchery, immorality or anything, and it has now modified it considerably and it is "misconduct" in the industrial sense. A man who had been merely late in the morning would find that that had been entered as "misconduct" which made him think that all sorts of unfavourable things were involved. The Ministry of Labour now explains the reasons. A man now receives a form with the reasons set out before he goes to any appeal court, for example, that he was frequently late for work, and the reasons are set out briefly. The Attorney-General ought to look into this matter again. It would be valuable for a man to have a short summary of the background of the Minister's mind with regard to the case. When we used to go almost daily with soldiers to the pensions appeal Board we were given long typewritten documents setting out all the hospitals in which the man had been a patient, the length of time and all about it. What the man really wanted was not those facts but the background of the Ministry and the accumulative effect of all these things. There might be a little difficulty in doing this, but I do not think it is insurmountable. To give a short summary of reason would really be an advantage. The Minister might say there was excessive drunkenness or alcoholic poisoning and that would be the background of the case. If the man knows the background he knows what he has to meet. I think that if the Attorney-General and the Minister of Pensions would give their minds to this small point they could go some way towards meeting the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg).

Captain Cobb

This is a point which I raised in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think that the Amendment which is down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) covers this point better than the Amendment of the Minister. In the first place, any man who makes an appeal against the Minister's decision has at least the right to know, generally speaking, the grounds on which the Minister has arrived at that decision. From the point of view of the Ministry I am quite sure that most men, if they were given a reasonable explanation as to why the Minister was unable to accept their claim, would see the Minister's point of view and, not bother about a further appeal. But if I were a claimant and was informed by the Minister that my claim had been turned down, although I could be given the reasons if I decided to put my case before a tribunal, I should always have another cut at it.

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)

I would like to support the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) largely on the grounds suggested by the last speaker. One of the things we want to do is to avoid bad feeling as much as we possibly can. If a man does not know on what ground his appeal has been turned down and gets merely a curt notice, he will have a grudge against the Ministry. That, I think, would be unfortunate for the Ministry, and in order to simplify things from the point of view of the Ministry's officials, apart from the effect on the men themselves, his Amendment should be accepted.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe (Brighton)

I want to endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) about this matter and particularly what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). It is a bad psychological approach to send people forms without giving them any explanation of their case. What is really wanted is to convey to the applicant the information that his case has had individual attention. If the Ministry of Pensions has a reason for turning down a pension claim, it should not be very difficult to say so, and presumably when they reject an application there must be a reason for it. The reason can be stated in a few words if the pension is refused. That would give the applicant the feeling that he is being fairly dealt with. He should not receive a form saying, "Your claim has been rejected because your injury was not attributable to war service," but he should receive an explanation as to why the injury has not been considered to be attributable to war service. I feel that the procedure suggested by the Attorney-General will only lead to an increase in the number of appeals, because the only machinery by which a person can receive a statement of reason is, apparently, first by lodging an appeal. Why should a course of that kind be taken when the matter can be so simply dealt with in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford? The Government's Amendment to this Clause is a rather niggardly way of dealing with something that could be dealt with by a generous gesture.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I do not want to repeat the arguments used on this Amendment, but I would like to say that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is far more desirable than that in the name of the Minister of Pensions. In my view the Amendment which the Minister is suggesting is not only valueless but really dangerous. There are only two grounds, A or B, and if I were a claimant and received a notice stating that it was under A, I would try to appeal against the Minister's decision, in order to find out what was behind his attitude. It is far better that the Minister should say that he was sorry, that he had gone into the case but could not give a pension. I should feel far less hostile if I received such an explanation than if I received a notice saying that the pension was being refused because the injury was not attributable to war service.

Mr. Bellenger

I, too, would like to urge the Government to reconsider this matter. We have heard expressions of opinion from all sides of the Committee, and I do not want to add to what has been said except to explain what happens at the present moment. A man is issued with a pink form stating that the Ministry rejects his claim for a pension, and there is generally inserted, in handwriting, the nature of his disease or disability. If all that the Government intend to do is to add, "Your claim has been rejected under A or B because of a certain disease," they will only increase the number of claims for appeals to be heard, so that men can get the real reasons set out extensively as to why the Ministry have rejected their claims. The Minister has told us that his staff will be heavily worked as soon as the tribunals are set up. The tribunals will have to prepare their side of the case, and it may save them a lot of work if, at the outset, a little more than the bare bones of the cause of rejection is given, so that a man could talk the case over with his adviser and see whether there is a prima facie case for appeal.

Sir W. Womersley

I must make an appeal to the Committee not to press for anything more than I have put down in my Amendment. There are very definite reasons why it would be very difficult to carry out the matter, from an administrative point of view. We are heavily pressed at the moment, and, in addition to preparing statements of cases for appeal tribunals, we have all these new conditions that are being brought in under the White Paper to put into operation. There will be hundreds of thousands of cases and new books to be issued, and it is almost impossible to carry it any further at the moment. If a statement is to be made, I do not think it sufficient that it should be short. No one would be satisfied unless there was a complete statement. Such a procedure would require a highly trained staff. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that when an appeal is made a complete statement is issued to the claimant, and he gets full knowledge of everything we have in the way of evidence. We can manage that. If my Amendment is accepted I will go into the matter carefully with the heads of my staff, whom I am meeting shortly, to see whether it is possible to devise some way administratively to meet the general wishes which have been expressed.

Major Manningham-Buller

It seems to me that the proposed Government Amendment is a little ambiguous. It says: specifying that it is made on that ground. The words "on that ground" appear to refer to two quite different grounds. First, the injury is not attributable to war service and, second, that it does not fulfil certain conditions.

The Attorney-General

Both have to be satisfied.

Major Manningham-Buller

When one looks at Clause 1, Sub-section (2) it appears that those are two quite distinct grounds. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it should not be stated quite clearly on which ground a claim is being rejected.

Mr. Hogg

I feel that the Committee has been put into a very difficult position by the Government. The views expressed are absolutely unanimous; they are contrary to the Government's view. But the Government have stood firm, the Committee is not very well filled and the result of the Government standing firm would be absolutely inevitable. May I put it like this? The Government, by taking a stand against the unanimous wishes of the Committee, are in the position of a person drawing on his bank balance. They drew on it once too often the last time. This time they still have plenty of money in the bank as a result of their White Paper, but you can go on drawing on the balance, and what has been done once may be done again. If, therefore, we do not press this matter to a Division on this occasion it does not mean that the Government's balance is not a bit lower than it was when they started.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 4, leave out "directly."

In line 4, leave out from "to," to the second "the," in line 5, and insert "war service."

In line 6, after "decision," insert "specifying that the injury is so accepted."

In line 8, leave out "directly."

Mr. Bellenger

I take it, Mr. Williams, that you are not calling my Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 8, at the end, to insert: (3) Where, for the purposes of any such claim as aforesaid, the disablement on which the claim is based is accepted by the Minister as fulfilling the conditions specified in the last foregoing Sub-section, the Minister shall notify the claimant of his decision as to the degree or nature of the disablement, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to the Tribunal on the issue as to the degree or nature of the disablement, in view of the subsequent Amendment in the name of the Minister?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)

That is so. The Minister's Amendment is to Clause 5, I believe.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 14, leave out "materially."

In line 15, leave out from "injury," to the end of line 16, and insert: which was attributable to war service.

In line 17, leave out from "to" to the end of line 21, and insert: or hastened by the aggravation by war service of an injury which existed before or arose during war service.

In line 22, after "decision," insert: specifying that it is made on that ground.

In line 34, leave out "naval, military or air force," and insert "war."

In line 36, leave out "material."

In line 42, leave out "material."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.