HC Deb 22 July 1943 vol 391 cc1139-42

Amendment made: In page 4, line 9, after "decision," insert: specifying that it is made on that ground."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Mr. Hogg

I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out from "Minister," to "allowed," in line 15, and to insert: has notified the appellant before the appeal is lodged that even if an appeal is lodged and. The idea of myself and my hon. Friend in moving this Amendment is that we thought it was unfair that only at the last moment should an appellant have placed before him a notice from the Minister alleging misconduct, without adequate opportunity to prepare an answer to it. We think this Amendment is probably dealt with by one which follows in the name of the Minister, and if we have that assurance from the Government we do not intend to press it.

The Attorney-General

There are two points here, and perhaps I should deal with my hon. Friend's Amendment and the two Government Amendments which follow, because they are closely related. I think the point of major importance is found in the part of the Amendment which is intended to prevent the Minister, as it is said, "coming and coming again." The appeal tribunal may decide that a case is attributable, but the Minister may think otherwise and say, "After all, I think there was misconduct and you must forfeit your rights." Under the Bill as drafted the Minister had the power, if a man gave notice of appeal on the grounds of attributability, to say, "I think this is a case in which there has been misconduct." The first thing we have done by our Amendment is to make it mandatory on the Minister, before the appeal is heard, to take the point of misconduct if he thinks it proper to take it, and if he does not take it then he cannot take it afterwards.

My hon. Friend's Amendment raises a slightly different point, on which I hope the Committee will think we have decided rightly. The point is that when the Minister looks at the case in the first instance he may say, "This is not attributable" and may then say "And if I am wrong about that, there was possibly misconduct." We suggest that at that stage the Minister should merely indicate that he regards it as a non-attributable case. If it is perfectly obvious that it is a non-attributable case it is quite unnecessary to rub into the man a reminder of misconduct which he will have heard about in the past and will want to forget. We therefore think it would be a pity to raise that point of misconduct, which may never come into the picture, because the man may realise that he has no hope of challenging the decision of non-attributability and will not bring the matter forward. It is felt that there will not be many cases in which this question will arise. But if the Minister is raising misconduct as an alternative, he should tell the man, so that the appeal tribunal can dispose of it. If they are against the Minister on both points that is an end of the matter; the man gets his pension and that is the end of the case. We hope the Committee will feel that is a satisfactory way of dealing with this problem, which we considered in the light of what my hon. Friend and others have said on previous occasions, and we entirely accept the principle that all points should be opened up by the Minister.

Mr. Hogg

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give this assurance in the event of our not pressing the point—first, that where misconduct is going to be alleged the man should be given sufficient time before the hearing to prepare his case, and, secondly, that he should be given sufficient particulars about the alleged misconduct to know what the charge is that he has to answer?

The Attorney-General

That must be a matter for the Rules, but of course a man must have time and must be given proper notice.

Mr. Hogg

In those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 4, line 17, leave out "may," and insert "shall."

In line 18, at the end, add: and unless the Minister notifies the appellant as aforesaid, he shall not be entitled, if the appeal is allowed, to withhold or reduce the award on the said ground."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

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

Dr. Haden Guest (Islington, North)

Where there is a question of misconduct or negligence I should like to know the position of the widow in case of the man's death. It would appear that the widow would have no right to pension, but that seems to be very unjust in certain cases, I do not say in all cases. Supposing that the negligence or misconduct arises from disobedience in walking over a mined area, resulting in the man being blown up. Is his widow to be deprived of any possibility of getting a pension? In one case which came to my notice a man broke out of detention and went over a mined area in his efforts to escape and was blown up. Is his widow to be perpetually penalised for something which was not within her power? Is she to have no pension at all because of something that certainly happened because of war service?

Sir W. Womersley

Under the Royal Warrant I have power to deal with these cases of misconduct and to award a full pension, or, if it is a case of really serious misconduct, then I can allow a partial pension. I have that right, and I can assure my hon. Friend that when it comes to dealing with widows' cases, fully realising that in any event the woman had nothing to do with the misconduct, I exercise that right as a rule.

Dr. Guest

The Minister says that as a rule he would exercise that right in favour of the widow, but that would mean he would exercise it only in certain cases. It is tremendously important that the widow should not be penalised.

Sir W. Womersley

But we cannot deal with that point in this Bill.

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