§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[R. J. Taylor.]
§ Mr. Thomas Macpherson (Romford):I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter of great importance to ex-Servicemen and their dependants, one which has received a considerable amount of prominence recently as a result of several judgments given against the Minister of Pensions in the High Court. It is the question of the principle popularly described as "Fit for service, fit for pension." Until that simple commonsense principle is accepted, ex-Servicemen will not be satisfied that they are getting a square deal so far as pension claims are concerned. I am not suggesting that a man should be entitled to a pension because of something which is the result of his own fault or folly, but I think that our British sense of justice and fair play demands that if a man is accepted by the Services perfectly fit, in category A.1, and comes out with his health impaired, suffering from some malady or disease or illness contracted during his war service, that man should be entitled to a pension in accordance with the degree of his disability
That is far from being the case today, and dissatisfaction is widespread, as every hon. Member of this House knows. Some indication of the position was given by my right hon. Friend himself in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for 1635 Luton (Mr. Warbey) to the effect that up to 31st January last, 680,000 men and women had been invalided out of the Forces, and of that number only 285,000 were in receipt of pensions. From further information elicited by a supplementary question, it would appear that up to that date something approaching 200,000 applicants for pensions had been turned down. To my mind, that represents a very serious state of affairs, for apart altogether from statistics, every hon. Member knows from his own postbag and from experiences in his own family or among his friends and constituents that there is something radically wrong with the treatment of ex-Servicemen so far as pensions claims are concerned.
In the first place I deplore the whole attitude, the whole spirit of the Ministry in dealing with pensions claims. I do not know what is the experience of other hon. Members, but both before I came into this House and since, in fighting these pensions cases, I cannot but feel that the medical and legal advisers of the Ministry all seem to be conspiring how to prevent a man getting the pension he justly deserves instead of facilitating his claim and dealing with it with sympathy and generosity. Many of the older Members of this House, of course, have experience or knowledge of the discreditable behaviour of past Governments in past wars in dealing with soldiers' pensions. We British people have many fine qualities in peace and in war, but right down through the ages our history of dealing with ex-Servicemen's pensions has never been one of which we can be proud. During the war nothing is too good for these men, but with victory and peace we find neglect and indifference.
Our God and soldiers we alike adore, When at the brink of ruin, but not before; After deliverance, both alike requited—Our God forgotten, and our soldiers slighted.Many of us in this House are determined that such a state of affairs shall not recur again, and that this time we shall profit from the experience of years gone by and make sure that our disabled ex-Servicemen are treated generously and decently.My second point is that, in my view, the Royal Warrant is not being properly interpreted either by the Ministry or by the appeal tribunals. It has, surely, percolated down to the Ministry of Pensions by this time that a great, funda 1636 mental change took place in the interpretation of the entitlement to pension as a result of the Royal Warrant of 1943. Previously, a claimant was not entitled to pension unless there was good and sufficient evidence that his disability was, in fact, attributable to war service. But in the Royal Warrant in accordance with which pensions are now being dealt with, the position is reversed. By Article 4, subsection (2) of the Royal Warrant of 1943, it is expressly stated that in no case shall there be onus on any claimant to prove fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt shall be given to the claimant. I suggest that in many cases the benefit of the doubt is not given to the claimant, and that in the majority of rejected cases the benefit of the doubt is given to the Ministry of Pensions.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend two questions on behalf of these men. The first is this. Mr. Justice Denning's judgment has definitely raised new hopes that, at last, many of these rejected cases will be reexamined. I want to ask if my right hon. Friend is prepared to reexamine all cases that have been rejected by the appeal tribunals; to examine them to see which of these cases are affected by Mr. Justice Denning's decision. Furthermore, applicants who have had their appeals turned down have been invited to go before the High Court; but that, also is impossible in many cases because there is a limit of six weeks after which one may not apply. I would ask my right hon. Friend if, having regard to all the new circumstances, he will agree to waive this condition concerning the six weeks, and make it possible for these men to take their cases to the High Court. These two points I ask the Minister to consider. If it is said that the tribunals have nothing to do with the Ministry of Pensions, but are responsible to the Lord Chancellor, then I ask my right hon. Friend to speak to the Lord Chancellor to see if he can persuade him to grant these two requests.
In conclusion, I remind the House that we are on the eve of great victory celebrations. Representatives from every branch of the Services, and of those who took part in the war, will be parading in a few days' time in procession, and tribute will be paid to them by the people of this country. But one big army will be missing from those parades—the army of the thousands of disabled and invalided 1637 ex-Servicemen who have been denied pensions. They will not be in the parades on 8th June. But their case is before this House tonight. I appeal to my right hon. Friend and to the Government to take immediate steps to effect some drastic changes in the administration of pensions for ex-Servicemen and ensure that from now onwards, they are treated not only with fairness, but with the greatest possible generosity.
§ 11.10 p.m.
§ Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale):May I supplement what the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Macpherson) has said, by one or two figures? Since these judgments in the High Court the percentage of cases which have gone in favour of the applicant has risen in the first month from 28 to 31 per cent., and in the second month to 32 per cent. That is not a great rise, but it is positive proof, I think, that the judgments have favourably affected decisions of the appeal tribunals. It would seem very wrong that any technicality should deny the men who have failed to "get by" the tribunals in the past two or three years what is now their right, and I think we must press the Minister to establish some easier machinery for a review of their cases than that of going to the High Court on a point of law. The second point is that the British Legion has, in fact, acted as advocate for go per cent. of all the cases which have gone to these tribunals, and out of 32,000 cases 10,000 have been won and 22,000 lost. I do not think that there can be any hon. Member in the House who has not heard of a case or read a case with care with regard to which he is satisfied that less than justice has been done. If this is so, it is indeed a blot upon our way of dealing with these men.
I would offer a word of caution in the minute that remains to me. If we are to accept this doctrine, "Fit for service, fit for pension" without any qualification, then my hon. Friends will, I am sure, see that in the case of a man who spent one week in home service and then left the Army because he was found to be unfit, and had been so all the time, or perhaps left the service for some other reason and 10 or 20 years later becomes ill, the principle of "fit for service, fit for pension," without any qualification, would give him a pension. He was fit, if only for a week and if only for home service. 1638 Is he to be fit for a pension for ever? In the interests of the men who were blinded, or who lost their limbs or their health on our battle fields fighting our battles, some preference must be given to them over the men who have hardly a shred of a claim. Therefore we cannot have this slogan, attractive as it is, but we must have something nearer to justice than we have at present.
§ 11.13 p.m.
§ Mr. Burden (Sheffield, Park):I think the House will be surprised to learn that in the case referred to by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Macpherson) the chairman of the appeals board refused permission for appeal to the High Court. The claimant, however, happened to be a member of the National Association of Local Government Officers, and went to his organisation. This body took legal opinion and again doubt was expressed whether the case could be sustained in the High Court, in view of the attitude of the chairman. The organisation took the risk, and I suggest that, in so doing, they performed a great public service, I put it to the Minister and to this House that if that man had not had behind him a great organisation, prepared to take the risk he would have been denied a pension. There must be thousands of cases in which the six weeks has elapsed, or in which there has been no powerful backing for a man or a woman—because there are women involved as well—who is suffering the injustice of being denied a pension. I appeal to the Minister, now that we have had this decision, to reconsider the matter, wipe out the six weeks limitation and review all the cases. One cannot in six weeks go over the cases, which we all know, of people who have been unjustly denied a pension. Now that this judgment has been given, those cases should be reviewed in the light of the new circumstances.
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham):In thanking the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Macpherson) for raising this very important question and putting it so ably, I would mention one aspect of the matter. All of us remember that in the early days of the last war there was a tendency on the part of brass hats to treat shell shock cases almost as having some taint of cowardice or of nervousness about them. I am going to say now that the treatment of cases of neurosis is most regrettable in most instances, quite apart 1639 from the fact that wholly inadequate hospital treatment is provided and is exceedingly difficult to obtain. There are many cases in my own division, and in other divisions, where men suffering acutely from neurosis or some associated complaint, have been kept at home with all the worry and burden of hopelessness, week after week, waiting for an appeal to be heard, waiting for a chance of treatment, and have finally gone before a tribunal which has treated them with less than the courtesy due to men who served the country in arduous times, and who have collapsed under the strain of their service.
The Minister, as we all know, is kindly, is courteous, is active and approachable, and has served the interests of the men he is there to serve. But I want to say to him with respect, that we are, all of us, getting from his Ministry to-day letters which breathe a spirit of hopelessness, letters which seem to be guided by regulations wholly too strict, which give no hope of review, no hope of reconsideration, in cases which obviously demand review. I quote one case, the case of a man who served in two or three continents, who was out in the desert for months, and who has come home today in a hopelessly nervous state. He is in a mental state, which almost calls for treatment in a mental hospital. He is a complete wreck. Although he was A1, when he joined up, and A1 when medically examined 12 months afterwards, and served abroad for upwards of two years, the answer to his claim is, that his present state is not attributable to service, I agree with the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that although "Fit for service, fit for pension" is a useful slogan in this matter, I would prefer to see it put clearly that the onus of proof where a man is passed A1, is upon the Ministry. I would have been content with that, if the law were so administered. I appreciate that the wider statement or the principle may lead to abuse and to a great deal of expense which, perhaps, could not be justified. But I hope the Minister after this Debate tonight will reconsider the whole position, and the regulations and the right of appeal to the county court, and will say that this man, denied the right of a pension, shall have the chance of a rehearing of his case. 1640 I am satisfied that there is an almost unanimous opinion in the House on this matter.
§ Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon):The Minister must consider those cases which have already been decided, otherwise men who have served in this war will be divided into two categories—those whose cases were decided before the recent judgment, and those whose cases have been decided since. To have the fighting men divided in that way must lead to grievance and dissatisfaction.
§ 11.20 p.m.
§ The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling):The question of "Fit for service, fit for pension," has been raised with great sincerity by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Macpherson) but I think the answer to him has been given by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and by one of the hon. Members on this side of the House. I admit frankly that we cannot have that. This question of "fit for service, fit for pension" has been discussed and considered in the utmost detail and with the utmost care by the last two Governments. When this Government came in and I was made Minister of Pensions, I was given certain powers. Many Members asked for a Select Committee, but we did not want a Select Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes we did."] The Government did not want it. I was asked to go into the whole question. I did so, and I brought in the White Paper which gave certain improvements. In 1943 the question was discussed, and then a White Paper was produced, but it was turned down for reasons similar to those given by two hon. Members during tonight's Debate. The Government have been accused tonight of being ungenerous, of people being denied pensions who have the right to them. I do not accept that view. The Ministry of Pensions has never been so sympathetically administered as it is today.
Mr. Palinǵ:That is an easy remark to make, but it is much more difficult to prove it. [HON. MEMBERS: "We can produce proofs."] When the 1943 change was made the onus of proof in these appeals was then on the appellant. This Government altered that, and the onus of proof is now on my Ministry. The Ministry must prove now that the 1641 claimant has no right to a pension, and I claim that we are carrying out that principle. What evidence can we accept in order to rebut an appellant's claim except medical evidence. We now get the finest medical evidence in the country. We are not interested in turning down men's claims. We discuss and decide each claim fairly on the evidence before us, and if the man is not satisfied he can go to a tribunal. If they turn him down he can go to a High Court judge on a point of law if he obtains leave to appeal. [Interruption.] Let me point out to hon. Members who say these men have no chance, that there is no organisation in this country which grants pensions or benefits of any kind to any person and which gives so many opportunities to claimants to prove their rights, or to fight those rights through various courts and committees, as are given in these cases. First a man is invalided out of the Army on a medical board. He comes to us and we may turn him down on the same basis. He can come to us as often as he likes, two, three, four, five times and if he has any new medical evidence to offer, any new point to make, we examine it and give him a fresh medical board. He can do more. He can go to his Member of Parliament and if the Member takes up the case on the production of new evidence he can come to us and once more we open up the case and once again have a medical board. Further, there are the war pensions committees to which these men can go, and on which are men ripe in experience in these cases. If it is so desired, once again there can be a medical board.
All this can happen, time after time, in appeal after appeal. In 1943, rather against the desire of the Ministry, independent tribunals were set up which had nothing whatever to do with the Ministry. Each tribunal had as chairman a barrister, it had a doctor, and it had a layman who knew the appellant's side. This applied to men and women, for both were affected. The committee was entirely independent. These again went into the question and came to a decision. Then the man could go to the High Court if he had leave to appeal. [Interruption.] In the tens of thousands of cases represented by the organisation which has been referred to tonight, with very few exceptions, no leave to appeal has ever been asked be 1642 cause, in the main, they were satisfied that they had had a decent deal.
§ Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely):Is it not a fact that the evidence which is fundamental in those cases which go before the tribunals, is the evidence given by the medical board which originally sees the state of the man, as soon as he has recovered from his wounds?
§ Mr. Paling:The House of Commons laid it down that in cases in which a man went to a tribunal we had to put down in précis form every scrap of evidence for and against the man that we knew. We have to send it to him for his consideration so that he can make any objection, and send in any amendment he thinks fit. After 28 days it can go to the tribunal. We are compelled by law to state everything, and we do so. After that he can go to the High Court. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much does he have to pay?"]. I am coming to that. Or rather he can go to the tribunal, and if the tribunal refuses him leave to appeal, he can go over their head to the High Court Judge, who can give him leave to appeal. If he gets leave to appeal, either from the tribunal itself or from the High Court judge, all his expenses are borne by the Government.
§ Sir I. Fraser:Can the Minister answer the immediate question: what does he intend to do in the light of these new judgments?
§ Mr. Paling:Three judgments have been given. There was the Moxon judgment given by Mr. Justice Tucker, who laid down the principle that we must give the doctor's certificate, and give the name of the doctor on it. We have done that since. That was a technical flaw. When that same principle went to Court of Session in Scotland with three judges, they entirely disagreed with it, and agreed with our method of doing it. When the case came before Mr. Justice Denning, he had to decide between Mr. Justice Tucker and three judges in Scotland. He went into a lengthy argument to give reasons why he agreed with Mr. Justice Tucker in the Moxon judgment. He said, in effect, that we were not presenting our evidence in the right way, or in a way to please him. It was not because the merits of the case demanded that a man should have a pension, but because we did not present the detailed 1643 evidence in the way in which we ought. If those cases were to go before a judge it is by no means certain that they would get through. If a certain judge gives a decision or lays down a principle, as Mr. Justice Denning has done, does that mean that every case that has gone previously has to be re-examined? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The law does not allow that. Further, suppose we did that, and reopened a case, and twelve months hence another judge gave another and different decision; ought we to go back on it again? This procedure was laid down precisely by the House of Commons in order to reach finality upon this question. As I said, it is a matter of presentation, and not a matter of a case being necessarily wrong. Because of that we cannot contemplate this proposition. If we did, then, if we lost our case because our presentation of the evidence 1644 was wrong, we too would require to have an opportunity of re-presenting it and going over our evidence again.
It would probably mean that when we presented our evidence in the way the judge wanted, the result would be the same and the man would not get a pension. A wrong idea prevails among Members of Parliament about the Denning judgment. Let me get back to the question again. It is wrong and I hope Members of Parliament will not persist because—
It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified by the Order made upon 16th August.
§ Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.