HC Deb 22 July 1943 vol 391 cc1152-9
Mr. Turton

I beg to move, in page 5, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2).

My reason for claiming that we should discuss this second Sub-section separately is that I wish to avoid confusion. We have just agreed to a right of appeal, to be exercised by everybody who gets an interim assessment if, after a period of two years, he does not get a final assessment. We have also agreed to a right of appeal for everybody who has a final settlement made. In this Sub-section we take away those rights which we have conferred, by saying that the Section shall not come into operation until such date at may be appointed by Order in Council. While I agree wholeheartedly with the right of appeal which is conferred, I view with suspicion and distaste this taking away of such a right by what is, in my view, a highly irregular procedure. The Minister, as far as I can understand, said on an earlier Amendment that he wanted to have this right of denying an appellant the right of appeal, because, otherwise, he would be flooded by appeals. Let us consider the appeal against interim assessments. That appeal cannot take place until two years has elapsed from the making of the interim assessment. Therefore, the Minister's fear can be related only to a period of at least two years after the passing of this Act.

The Attorney-General

Two years after the making of the first interim assessment. There are men who have now had their first interim assessment made two years ago.

Mr. Turton

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that explanation. That makes the position far worse. It means that there are men who at some time have had an interim assessment made, with which they are dissatisfied, and that, by this Sub-section, we are going to deny them the very right of appeal which the House has unanimously granted. I see no reason why that right should be denied. It may mean more work for the Ministry of Pensions, but the rights of disabled men do, and should, take priority in the consideration of this Committee. If more officials are required, let them be taken from other Departments. I see some Government Departments with plenty of officials, and it would be no great problem to spare one or two to enable these disabled men to have the right to appeal in respect of interim assessments.

Let me come to the final settlement. This final settlement is not made until the Minister deems that the circumstances in each case permit it. I entirely agree with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said. I do not wish these final settlements to be made too early—I do not think that that would be in the interests of the disabled men—but once they are made, it is highly improper that the House of Commons should, by any subterfuge, try to deny them their right of appeal. The Minister has, under this Sub-section, a wide discretion as to when he makes his final settlement. Once he has made it, let us declare that there shall be a right of appeal against that settlement immediately.

Finally, I would ask, whether this is not a very curious way of drafting a Bill? We give in previous Sub-sections rights of appeal, and then we say that they shall not come into operation until Parliament, having passed this Act, later passes an Order in Council bringing them into operation. If we are satisfied to-day that there should be interim assessment rights of appeal and final settlement rights of appeal, why not say so, instead of making it dependent upon later decisions of the House? I ask the Committee not to pass this Sub-section. I think the Minister will have adequate protection without it. I regard the long period of two years between the interim assessment and the disabled person's right of appeal as being sufficient safeguard. As regards the final settlement, it is made quite clear that the Minster will have to be satisfied that the time is ripe for a final settlement before he makes any final settlement. Therefore, he can use his discretion to ensure that there is no great flood of appeals against final settlements at a given moment. It is because the Minister has adequate discretion and because this Committee are unanimously in favour of these rights of appeal that I ask Members not to cut short these benefits.

The Attorney-General

I think the clue to a wise decision on this subject depends upon two principles, one of which is that first things should come first. I will say a word or two as to the order in which, in our view, these various cases should come. Secondly, as and when the right of appeal is conferred, it is important that you should be able to deal with appeals as promptly as possible, particularly appeals from interim awards. Everybody knows the difficulties which war conditions impose on man-power in all directions. My hon. Friend said, "Borrow a few civil servants from other departments." That is not a very easy thing to do, as my right hon. Friend can tell the House.

Mr. Turton

There is a cutting down now taking place in Government Departments.

The Attorney-General

The important point is that it is very specialised work and it is very difficult to get people who are able to operate these things at short notice. I am very anxious that the Committee and my hon. Friend should accept the view that in making this proposal we are not anxious to shirk anything or to provide officials of the Ministry with an easy time. We make this proposal because we believe that it is the right way to approach this problem. I do not believe that anybody in the Committee would dispute for a moment that entitlement cases are the most important, and nobody would dispute that from the time of the passing of the Act, the appellate work will throw a considerably increased volume of work on the Ministry and its officials. Casualties and war injuries will not stop, indeed may increase. Therefore, the day-to-day work of the Department, apart from the preparing of the statements for the appeal cases, which is, in itself, a very considerable job, will go on. In any event, you are going to place an increased burden on an already hard-worked staff.

There are three categories with which to deal, the entitlement people, the final award cases and the interim assessment cases. If you have not a suspensory provision, such as exists in Sub-section (2), all appeals of all three categories, would come forward the day after the Act was passed. There is, apart from this, the starting of the tribunals, and it is difficult to foresee how many entitlement appeals there will be. There will, undoubtedly, be a substantial number. We felt that it was right to see that the machine should not be clogged by entitlement appeals. This House has said to all these people, "You can appeal," but if after appeals from the second and third categories come in the entitlement appeals being the most important, you put these people on one side, you will have delay. My right hon. Friend has no desire to do that. He desires to make all this machinery operate as quickly as administrative possibilities and the starting of the tribunals will allow.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this and if one were dealing with an unlimited staff there would be great force in what he said. We believe that it would really be misleading people if we passed the Bill in the form which is suggested so that in respect of all these three categories, the right of appeal should operate forthwith. We do not think that that is possible. Therefore, the honest and fair thing, not only for us but for the people, is to provide for entitlement cases to come into force at once, and the other categories of appeals as soon as may be afterwards. The Minister can be heckled and asked how he is getting on, but in principle we believe it to be right that the Bill should enable these categories of appeal to be postponed until the back of the entitlement appeals is broken. It is right to say this, and those more familiar than I am with pension cases—the British Legion, and those who have made a study of this subject—will agree that there has been great pressure to introduce the appellate tribunals for entitlement cases. The interim assessments, on the whole, give satisfaction and there has not been anything like so urgent a demand for appeals in that case. For these reasons, I hope that the Committee will feel that this is not an attempt to get out of anything, but an attempt to be honest and straightforward with the Committee and with the men concerned, and to see that first cases are dealt with first, and the others as soon as possible on getting the machinery with which to deal with them.

Mr. Hogg

It may be that the Attorney-General has made an unanswerable case, but I cannot help thinking that there will be other Members of the Committee, besides myself, who feel a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I am speaking for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) when I say that he certainly does not regard a possible delay in the operation of this Clause with anything like equanimity. We have already got people who want to appeal under this Clause who have been waiting for more than three years. You have those who were in the campaign before the fall of France who are over the two years' limit, and those who were in the Far East campaign, and the 1941 campaign in the Desert are just about on the two years' limit. I cannot help feeling that the Government have a little lost sight of the fact that, even as regards interim assessment, it is a matter of some urgency.

A very strong case has been put up by the Attorney-General, and the Minister himself in relation to the last Amendment put forward the same case. He said in the first place that you must have priority, and that entitlement cases must come in front of assessment cases. That may very well be true, but it is only true if and in so far as the appellate tribunal machinery is insufficient to deal with the whole number of appeals. That is not a matter which can be looked at with anything like equanimity. Consequently, he says that the actual burden of work which would be brought to bear upon the appellate tribunal machinery, would be more than that machinery and the office could bear. Again, that may be true. It may be that we have to yield to that argument, but it is, in the last resort, allowing oneself to yield to a purely administrative argument when a vital human problem is at stake. It may be that we have to do it—the Attorney-General has made a very persuasive case—but we cannot do it with anything like equanimity. I feel certain that there must be several Members of the Committee besides myself who would like at least some indication from the Government of when these Orders in Council may be expected to come into being. We do not look upon it as other than an urgent problem. Campaign succeeds campaign and new groups of people are brought in, while there are others waiting their turn although the two years' period has already lapsed. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale explained that the period of two years was carefully arrived at, among others, by the British Legion, as being a reasonable period based upon the length of time during which a serious wound tends to fluctuate. So far as people who have already been waiting for three years are concerned, it can no longer be held to operate and a new and more severe period is already in operation. For these reasons, although it may be that the Committee cannot accept the Amendment, it has a great deal of sympathy from me.

Earl Winterton

I desire to associate myself with my hon. Friend. I apologise to the Attorney-General for not being here at the beginning of his speech, having been called to the telephone on work connected with another Department. I would make an appeal rather on the lines of that of my hon. Friend. From what I heard of the speech of the Attorney-General it was a powerful argument but I did not like his reference to "the machinery." We have had too many references to machinery. We had a calamitous one on a previous occasion by the Minister himself. It is not a question of the strain placed upon the staff of the Ministry of Pensions. Surely the question should be considered by the Ministry in the light of the urgency of the matter. We are always hearing of fresh Ministries of different kinds being set up, such as the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Can it be said that it is outside the bounds of possibility for the Minister, if he is short of staff, to apply to the Treasury for permission to have a larger staff? I hope, therefore, however strong the argument may be for postponement, if there is any postponement, it will not be on the basis of the strain on the staff at the present time. Most of us will regard the matter, in view of the time that has lapsed since it was first propagated in the House and the country, as urgent, and I hope that the Minister of Pensions and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not take objection to the Amendment on the grounds of the strain upon the staff of the Ministry of Pensions.

Dr. Haden Guest

I should like to be sure that the only question that can arise is the question of assessment.

Sir W. Womersley

That is so.

Dr. Guest

It is not a question of disability. I want to make that clear, as I do not think it is clear to everybody. I am one of those who rather forced home the point that staff could have been provided at an earlier stage. I think that the Attorney-General has put up a very strong case, but from the standpoint of the man himself you must distinguish between human and administrative cases. As far as the human case goes—and nothing could be stronger than that—you should meet that by the machinery. The Minister does so in every case. If there is any case in which a man feels aggrieved by his assessment and the matter is raised with the Ministry, either by a Member of Parliament or otherwise by a direct reference, it is, as the Minister recently explained, referred to a board of medical men who review the case.

It seems to me that if the tribunal makes the assessment, it would be final. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg the Committee's pardon, but in any case the Ministry's board gives a man all the possible help he could require. It is a fact that at the present time there is a tremendous pressure on staff. You cannot just take a civil servant from one Department, put him on to this work and let him carry on. You cannot take a doctor from other work and transfer him to this work and expect him to be able to do it. There is a strict limit to the number of doctors available at the present time; there is a great demand for their services and there is likely to be a still greater demand. The case which the Attorney-General has put up is a very sound one. On the point of humanity, everything the man could desire can be given to him by a review of his case by the board in the Ministry itself and, on the administrative side, I think the Attorney-General has put forward a case which should be accepted.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'different,' in line 3, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Amendments made: In page 5, line 3, after "for," insert: Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) respectively and for.

In line 3, at the end, add: to which those respective Sub-sections apply."—[The Attorney-General.]

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

Mr. Bellenger

From this Clause it appears that the initiative in making the final award is to come from the Minister. It states: it appears to the Minister that the circumstances of the case permit a final settlement.…. I wonder whether it would not be equitable to give a similar right to the pensioner. If the pensioner had had his pension reduced twice or perhaps three times he might feel that he would like his pension to be finally fixed. In those circumstances, would it not be right to allow him to make application for a final award?

Sir W. Womersley

I do not think it would be a good thing from his point of view. I do not think anybody would want to do that. I think a claimant would prefer to wait until the Minister himself initiated the proceedings for making final assessment. Until then, the claimant could come back to us and say that his disability had increased. This request has never been put to me by any of the ex-Service men's organisations.

Dr. Morgan (Rochdale)

Sometimes these proceedings are delayed and if it were found that an organisation, such as a trade union acting for a claimant, under medical advice, submitted a request for the Minister to make a final move, I think that ought to be granted.

Sir W. Womersley

If a request were made in such a direct way and with such a backing, I would undertake to consider it. But some medical evidence ought to come with it. It should not be merely a matter of a man's own request, because sometimes people ask for things which are not good for them.

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