CLAUSE 5.—(Appeals against the final settlement of extent of disablement.) (Hansard, 22 July 1943)

§ The Attorney-General
I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, at the beginning, to insert: (1) Where, in the case of any such claim as is referred to in Section one, Section two or Section three of this Act in respect of the disablement of any person, the Minister snakes an interim assessment of the degree of the disablement, he shall notify the claimant thereof and if, at the expiration of two years from the time when he first notified such an interim assessment, he has not made such a final decision or assessment as is referred to in the next following Sub-section, an appeal shall lie to the Tribunal from the interim assessment in force at the expiration of the said period of two years and from any subsequent interim assessment, and the Tribunal on any such appeal may uphold the Minister's assessment or may assess the disablement at such higher or lower degree as they think proper. In this Sub-section the expression 'interim assessment,' means any assessment other than such a final assessment as is referred to in the next following Subsection. This is the Amendment which deals with a matter which we discussed on the first Amendment. The Amendment provides that there shall be a right of appeal from an interim assessment and that that right shall arise at the expiration of two years from the time when the man was notified of such an interim assessment. I think that I might at the same time deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Our later Amendment provides that this right of appeal shall not come into operation until—

§ Mr. Turton
On a point of Order. The Attorney-General has suggested that we should discuss Sub-section (2) at the same time as Sub-section (1), but I have an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (2), and I suggest that it would be more con- 1143 venient if we discussed the Amendment the Attorney-General is moving now and discussed Sub-section (2) later.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We can only discuss two Amendments together by the agreement of the Committee, and perhaps it would be better if we discussed only Sub-section (1) now, unless there is general agreement.

§ The Attorney-General
Then in putting forward this Amendment I must not refer to the fact that by a later Amendment this cannot come into operation until the Minister's decision has been given, and that is a principle which I think commends itself to the Committee. We put forward the interval of two years as being reasonable. It has been said before, but I think it should be repeated, that these cases are under constant administrative review. Whenever a man complains that his circumstances have worsened he gets a new medical board or examination, and although we agree that in principle there ought to be this right these are not cases which are left without constant examination. So far as there is likely to be controversy or friendly criticism I think it will arise on the Amendments to which I cannot at the moment refer.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I take it that this Amendment is intended to meet the case put up in an earlier Amendment which I did not have the opportunity of moving, and, if so, I should like to say a few words upon it. As the Bill is drafted, Clause 5 only gives the right of an appeal to an appellant on certain specified grounds, namely, whether the Minister was right in rejecting his claim under paragraphs (a) or (b) of Clause 1, but he has no right of appealing to the tribunal on the assessment of his disability and the pension that goes with it. The Minister may say, "I accept your claim as being attributable to or aggravated by your war service, and I assess your disability at 40 or 50 per cent." The claimant may disagree with that assessment, thinking it is not sufficient, but under this Clause as drafted he cannot appeal against that assessment until the Minister makes a final assessment. My Amendment was drafted to deal with that point, and the Minister has met it to this extent that he is prepared to allow the appellant to appeal against the assessment of his dis- 1144 ability after two years from the first assessment of his disability by the Minister. Therefore, although at some time he has the right of appealing against his assessment of disability, it is not to be earlier than two years from the date when the Minister fixed his first assessment.
The procedure at the moment is—and I presume that this procedure will still operate after the Amendment is carried—that if a man is discontented with his assessment he can appeal to the Minister of Pensions to reconsider the matter. I understand that the Minister then, if he thinks fit, passes the claim on to another board to adjudicate upon, not a pensions appeal tribunal but a board under his control. As I understand the position, the man can frequently appeal to the Minister if he thinks his disability has worsened or his assessment is not sufficient, and the Minister, as long as he accepts it as a serious claim, will give it consideration in his Ministry.
My first question is this: If the Committee accept the Amendment, will the man still have the right to ask for his interim assessment to be reconsidered by the Ministry of Pensions? The next point is: If, after two years have elapsed, he goes to a pensions appeal tribunal and his assessment is fixed either up or down, is that assessment still an interim assessment or is it in the nature of a final assessment, as it would be under the Clause as now drafted? These are my two substantial points. The two years is perhaps a little long. I think the man should have a right of appeal to the pensions appeal tribunal a little earlier than two years. In principle the Minister has accepted what was contained in my Amendment. I would ask him, in the absence of a valid reason as to why the man should not be entitled to appeal under two years from the date of his first assessment, that he should make it one year. By the end of one year a man has had a chance of seeing where he stands. He has probably gone out to work and taken some light job, and he can see whether he is able to cope with it. In many cases where the Minister has given 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. disability pension, men have found that when they try to take on work, especially war work, they break down and are not able to continue it. They may have a period in hospital or away from work. While they are in work and drawing 1145 wages, especially war wages, they are probably prepared to accept the Minister's assessment, but as soon as they fall out of work they feel that they ought to have a bigger pension because they cannot keep up the pace. That is a very good reason why the Minister should alter this two years to one year. By that time, the man will have found his feet in civilian industry, or he will not have done so and he should have the right of appeal.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
I am glad that the Government have given this right of appeal. My objection is that a man who thinks the assessment is wrong will have no opportunity of having it put right until he has suffered under it for two years. I would ask the Government to consider making provision that men who are dissatisfied should be allowed to appeal as soon as the assessment is arrived at. I quite see the point about not having the appeal tribunals flooded and so on, but a man ought to be given the right of appeal once in two years, and that immediately after the assessment which does not satisfy him. Such an appeal would not be final and would not stop the man applying afterwards to the Minister to have his assessment raised or stop the Ministry reducing that assessment if circumstances justified. A further point is that the Amendment merely provides for the Sub-section being inserted in the Clause, but the Clause will not come into effect until there is an Order in Council. It means conferring a right which may not be very valuable or, if it is of any value, that value will arise only at an indeterminate date. If my right hon. Friend would put those two points right, I would be perfectly satisfied with this concession.

§ Mr. Hubert Beaumont
As one who had his name down to the Amendment on page 384, I accept in principle the Amendment submitted by the Minister, but there are one or two points which should be clarified. It is important that claimants should know that they have an appeal within the period of two years. It might easily be surmised that, an interim assessment having been made, the man concerned would not be able to appeal within two years. Persons who were particularly dissatisfied might labour under what they considered an injustice for those two years, and that would have a mental, if 1146 not a physical, effect upon the individuals concerned. So, for the sake of health and happiness, I hope it will be made very clear, and that the Minister will make it quite positive, that no matter what the interim assessments may be and despite the fact that the individuals cannot appeal to a tribunal within two years, they have the right to appeal to the Minister and that the Minister will see that their cases are reviewed by a medical board—not the one that made the interim assessment but by another medical board altogether.
That would mean that an individual will feel that if a medical mistake has been made it can be rectified within the two years. If sufficient evidence is adduced, I hope that interim assessments will be altered. I assume also that if an individual makes an appeal to the Minister and is successful in getting an increase in the interim assessment, it will not mean that he will have to wait a further two years from the time he gets the improved assessment before he can appeal to a tribunal. I quite see the advantage of the degree of assessment being determined by medical boards in preference to tribunals, as a board will consist of medical practitioners who will be able to assess a man's degree of disability. I would ask the Minister for an assurance that everyone will have a right to an appeal to the tribunals two years after the assessment is made and will still have the right of appeal to the Minister. I should be prepared to accept this concession.

Mr. Beverley- Baxter (Wood Green)
The period of two years is too long, but, human nature being what it is, I do not think we can allow this to go by without some regulation about the period of appeal. We all know that there is a type of chronic applicant who would be on the Minister's doorstep every three weeks. Therefore the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) is a compromise which might be adopted. I would support the hon. Member's suggestion of one year.

§ Commander King-Hall
If a man wins his appeal at the end of two years, is the new assessment retrospective?

§ Mr. Burke (Burnley)
I take it that, in connection with the two years, the Minister will be also bound not to review the case within that period and not to attempt 1147 a reduction in the assessment. I agree that the period of two years is too long, but I hope that the Minister is similarly bound as is the man himself. Further, if a man has his case reviewed by the Minister who alters the first assessment, will the two years date from the time that the Minister reviewed it or from the time of the first assessment?

§ Sir I. Fraser
The insertion of any period by this Amendment raises the question of how long it will be before these things begin. I do not want to embark upon a discussion of that point, because we have agreed to take it upon a later Amendment. My acceptance of the Clause must of necessity be contingent upon what assurance the Government give us that they will not delay unduly in bringing the Clause into operation. It is on that understanding that I accept this proposal. While I am speaking, may I say a word about the two-year period? I ventured to suggest this two-year period to the Government, and I am glad they accepted it. The reason is that experience shows that there is a period after a man has been very severely wounded during which it is deleterious to him to make him appeal-conscious. It is bad for him to feel that he is in a contentious way with the Government. It is very much better if he can be brought to trust the medical man who is looking after him and who is seeing how his wounds are going on and giving him a little more attention if he is worse and so on. Confidence is better built up if the idea of constant or early appeal is out of his mind. I think that is true, and I am assured by the Chairman of the British Legion, which has so much experience of appeal courts and its procedure—and I believe it—that it is better not to have too early an appeal and not to have it too frequently.

§ Sir W. Womersley
What is our procedure regarding these assessments? A man has an assessment, and if he is dissatisfied, he has the right of appeal to the Minister. Immediately we get an appeal we order a further examination by a different board entirely, so that the man is not being assessed twice by the same board. We think we shall get an impartial opinion in that way. If the board decide that the man's claim is good, they assess his disability at whatever they feel 1148 is right. There are cases in which they find that the man is really improved, and they reduce the assessment. You cannot have these appeals unless they go both ways. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) wanted me to give him an assurance about this system, which has worked extremely well, and I have the assurance of the British Legion on this point. They have exercised the right on behalf of many men in making appeals to the Minister, and have never been refused re-examination. They are satisfied that there have been no complaints on this question of interim assessments.
I can assure the hon. Member that we shall continue to give that right of appeal to the Minister. Sometimes that appeal comes through a Member of Parliament. I shall continue to regard that as a right too, in spite of the fact that we are to provide for these appeals to a tribunal. I want to keep as many cases away from the tribunal as I possibly can, and the only cases I can keep away are those in which I satisfy the claimant. Otherwise he is bound to go to the tribunal. I shall do everything I can to carry on with the methods we have had in the past.

§ Dr. Haden Guest
What are the number of medical men on the tribunal in the Minister's own assessment tribunals?

§ Sir W. Womersley
It varies, though it is not a tribunal; it is a board. It is always two at any rate. There may be abnormal conditions during a war, and we have sometimes to make the best use of the material available. It is regarded as a fully constituted board in ordinary times.

Dr. Guest
I am only trying to help the Minister. It is not just one medical man?

§ Sir W. Womersley
No, I would not consent to that at all. I would not call that a board; at all events, I would not call it a fair board. The question has been raised as to why we want to delay bringing this in for some time.

§ Mr. Turton
I thought we had agreed to discuss that on the next Amendment, when we could deal with the matter fully.

§ Sir W. Womersley
This matter has been mentioned in the course of the discussion, and I have been asked to give a direct answer to it. Why we put it 1149 at two years is for the reasons stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser); it is the fact that it is much better to carry on with our ordinary procedure until there is something like a settlement of the disability rather than have men coming in frequently, which would possibly be harmful to the man himself. The two years come about in this way too. We realise we shall have to take this in steps. I mentioned that on Second Reading, because we could not possibly set up enough tribunals to deal with all the claims we shall get under this heading. Therefore, to save disappointment on the part of those who are claiming, we must operate it so that a certain number at a time are dealt with. It is a convenient way to meet that position that those who have had two years disablement come in proper order, That is the best way of dealing with it.
There are two things to be considered. It will give time for both the claimant and ourselves to get to the point when it is worth while appealing, these examinations having gone on meanwhile. Also it will provide that flow that I want in the proper way; there can be no complaint about anyone getting in the queue ahead of the others. I give the assurance that we shall carry on with the system I have mentioned, which has given universal satisfaction as far as I know, and shall bring this new provision into operation. There are some men who have had assessments for two years, but I am asking the Committee to agree that it shall be left to me to decide the dates, subject to pressure from Parliament, because we have these tribunals on entitlement sitting. It has already been said by the Attorney-General that we regard this question of entitlement as the most important of all, because the men concerned have no pension at all. We think they have the first right to have their cases heard rather than a man who is complaining about the amount of his pension. It is important that we should deal with assessment, but our first duty is to those who have not a pension and who think that they should get one. We must concentrate our main attention and our staff on dealing with those particular cases.
The position as regards staff is a very difficult one indeed. Everybody knows what the position is about man-power 1150 and about woman-power. Trained people are needed to deal with this work. It is quality as well as quantity; otherwise it will not be to the advantage of the claimant. Bear in mind also that we have to carry out the new provisions laid down in the White Paper, which will mean an enormous amount of extra work being thrown on our staff in the next few months. I do not want to keep the people who are to benefit by these concessions waiting. We have fixed a date when we hope we shall be able to carry out those Amendments as regards extra rates of pay and so on. It means issuing hundreds of thousands of new books, a tremendous job. I want that job to be done thoroughly and well. To add to that interim assessment tribunals would just break the machine. It is not possible to do it.
All I am asking is that the Committee will allow the date of the commencement of proceedings before these particular tribunals to wait until I am in a position in my Department to deal with and handle them properly. What is the safeguard against delay? it might be asked. The safeguard is Parliament, the House of Commons, because if hon. Members feel that I am delaying this matter too long, they can put Questions at Question time, they can raise it with me, and I shall expect to be cross-questioned about it if I am unduly delaying. I can assure the Committee I shall bring these tribunals into operation—it is not merely a vague promise but a definite promise—as soon as it is practically possible.

§ Mr. Baxter
Will the Minister clarify one point? Where we have personal knowledge that the condition of a wounded and disabled man has suddenly become worse, can we as Members of the House make an appeal to the Minister although two years have not elapsed? Would that be in order, in spite of the fact that the man was not eligible to appeal?

§ Sir W. Womersley
In every case where a Member calls my attention to what he considers a low assessment I immediately order that the case shall be examined by a board, and a different board from that which examined him previously. That is a method we shall continue to follow. [Interruption.] I thought that answered itself. If a new 1151 assessment is made, it will date from the date of the new assessment, because in the meantime the man has had the opportunity to appeal to me as many times as he likes. In the case where a tribunal approves any decision which increases the assessment it runs from that date.

§ Commander King-Hall
If the Minister has rejected an appeal and the man does not have the right to appeal to a tribunal for two years, would it not be the case that if his assessment is increased by the tribunal he will have been deprived of that increase in the intervening period?

§ Sir W. Womersley
A tribunal of this kind will have to decide what was the degree of the disability of the man at the date when they examined him.