HC Deb 15 February 1949 vol 461 cc1105-12

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Poole (Lichfield)

I apologise to hon. and right hon. Members, and also to the staff of the House, for venturing to start another Debate at this hour of the night when we have been casually discussing other members of the community having a remuneration of £400 a month for a 42 hours week. The subject I wish to raise is that of pensions appeal tribunals. I do so only in the hope that we may be able to improve the present machinery of these tribunals. They are judicial tribunals established under the Act of 1943 for the hearing of appeals by ex-Service men and former members of the Civil Defence services where the appellant is not prepared to accept the verdict of the Minister of Pensions on their particular cases. They are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's department; they are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and the whole of the instructions which go out to them originate from that department.

The whole of this House is aware, and, I think, must be ashamed, of the very shabby treatment which ex-Service men and others—especially those who were disabled—received after the 1914 war in the matter of pensions. It has been left to this Government to bring in legislation to redress many of the pensions grievances even of those from the 1914 war, 30 or more years afterwards, and to try to give justice in many such cases. I believe that all hon. Members of this House desired something better after the last war than the treatment which was accorded to disabled ex-Service men of the 1914 war, and I felt so strongly about this matter that I took the liberty of inserting in my election address a little paragraph which went something like this: "The Service men and women will believe me when I say that I will try this time to see that they have a fair deal" and, in redemption of that promise, I venture to raise this matter tonight.

I am as I say sorry to keep the House at so late an hour, but I have waited for eleven years to have an Adjournment Debate in this House and I hope I may, therefore, be forgiven for speaking so late. There are three points which I wish to raise briefly. First, I want to ask for a larger measure of decentralisation of the appeal tribunals. The regulations state that the tribunals shall sit at such times, and in such places, as the Lord Chancellor may, from time to time, determine. There has grown up a tendency to concentrate the hearings in London. Now, London is absolutely the worst place to which one can ask a disabled ex-Service man to come to have his case heard; there is the problem of negotiating Underground stairs, and so on, in order to get to the place of hearing, and there is the question of accommodation: these things make London worse than any other place, always remembering that the provincial ex-Service man is not so familiar with the capital as those of us who are called upon to spend much time here.

There is something to be said about this policy of decentralisation in that there is some time between the lodging of an appeal and the result of it if tribunals are to function as at present, with a legal member—who is the chairman—a medical member, and a lay member corresponding in rank and sex to the appellant. If the present policy of continuing to hold separate tribunals persists, there will be a continuing delay; but I want particularly to ask the Attorney-General whether there is any need for separate tribunals for officers and other ranks. Why should not the same tribunal treat both, with the substitution of on officer for the lay member if it be an officer's case, and then have somebody else standing in if it is an other rank's appeal? I think in that way it would be possible to get cases dealt with quite expeditiously in our larger cities instead of drawing them to London.

Secondly, and of even greater importance, is the main point I wish to raise, when I ask for an assurance that the appellants who are called to the appeal tribunals shall be assured that their cases will be heard on the day on which they are called. May I recount something which I saw myself at an appeal tribunal recently, so that the House will be able to see what I mean. I saw before the appeal Tribunal in London recently the case of a man with a severe spinal injury. His case was down for hearing and he had been called to the tribunal for 11 o'clock on a certain morning. That man waited from 11 o'clock until 3.30 p.m.— a four and a half hours wait—after having come from Reading, accompanied by his wife because it was not safe for him to move on his own. At 3.30 p.m. he was told by the tribunal that his case could not be taken that day and that he must return to Reading and come up again the next day. I think that is positively disgraceful treatment of a disabled ex-Service man who is seeking to have his appeal heard.

I am prepared to admit that on occasions when a case may take a long time someone must be inconvenienced—either the disabled ex-Service man who been called upon or the members of the tribunal. I want to ask that it shall not be disabled ex-Service men who shall be inconvenienced, but that if necessary, the members of the tribunal shall sit till 5.30 or 6 p.m. to complete the cases that have been called for that day's hearing. There is absolutely no justification for sending a disabled ex-Service man back or suggesting that he should go back. It is interesting to note that in the case of this man who was sent back, or told to go back, to Reading, or else to find accommodation in London overnight—and that is not easy—the tribunal rose that day at 4.30 in the afternoon. Perhaps the Members of this tribunal are well remunerated—

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross

indicated dissent.

Mr. Poole

The Attorney-General shakes his head, but ideas of remuneration are relative. For instance if one compares the remuneration of the Attorney-General with the remuneration of dentists working a 40-hour week, I should say that the Attorney-General was badly remunerated. These things are all relative, perhaps some of the staff of this House whom I am detaining tonight may think themselves badly remunerated in relation to me. I am told that the remuneration of the members of the tribunals is fairly adequate, though I have not been able to ascertain what it is vet —but it seems they do not even work a 42 hour week.

I want some assurance that if anyone has to be inconvenienced by a case running a long time, it will not be the disabled ex-Service man. I ask for a positive assurance on that account because there are and must be many days when cases either do not turn up—and only seven are called on an average day —or else the cases run very smoothly and the tribunal not infrequently has been able to complete its sittings at a very early hour in the afternoon. Good luck to them if they can do it, but I must ask, if things do not turn out so well, that they should be prepared to sit a little longer. I believe one of the arguments against sitting longer than 4.30 p.m. is that their decisions after a long day's sitting may be "woolly." I rather regard that as something of a condemnation of those who not infrequently try to deliberate and legislate here into the small hours of the morning. I really do not think their decisions need be any more "woolly" at 4.30 p.m. or 5 or 6 p.m. than at 10 a.m.

Thirdly, I come to the question of expenses. Today a man who comes before a tribunal has his expenses paid and a railway warrant to bring him to the place of the tribunal. If, for reasons of health, he ought to be accompanied by an attendant, he can bring that attendant with him, and that attendant's expenses will be paid. If it is necessary to produce medical evidence, a doctor's expenses may be paid, and a fee of three guineas may be paid to the doctor. I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider this question of expenses. How can one expect a man to come from Newcastle or Reading to London for a case which may not be taken that particular day, and be satisfied with a remuneration of three guineas for the loss of a whole day in his practice? What will happen is that the doctor just will not come and the man will be deprived of what is, perhaps, necessary medical evidence to prove his case.

The importance of other witnesses also arises. A man may have an inadequate medical history, as I myself had when my case came before a tribunal recently, and in cases of that kind, special witnesses may be needed. There is no provision at all at the present time for the payment of expenses and allowances for these special witnesses, and I ask that where extraneous witnesses are certified by the chairman of the tribunal as being necessary the tribunal ought to be empowered to pay their expenses. It is no use saying that the onus is on the Ministry to disprove a man's case if one does not give a man the fullest opportunity to prove his case. The grant for which I am asking tonight would not cost very much—certainly not more than we ought to grant to these men—and I hope the suggestions I have put forward tonight may receive the very sympathetic consideration of the Law Officers and that we may have some assurance on the three points which I have raised.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman (Stoke Newington)

May I make one short point in support of my hon. Friend's appeal? Recently I have received complaints from two of my constituents who put down their applications for hearing before a pensions appeal tribunal and had to wait 16 months before their cases were heard. I am told that on the average, it is six months before the hearing of a case, and although it is true that in the end an applicant succeeds in having made good to him whatever he loses through the period of waiting, I do hope something can be done to expedite this matter and to see that the hearing takes place in a very much more expeditious manner than at present.

11.35 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)

I hope that I shall be able to deal satisfactorily with the three points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole), and also the point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). In view of the strong epithets used by my hon. Friend about certain aspects of the pensions appeals tribunals, I should like to say just one or two things of a general nature.

It is very easy to be critical, and no doubt there is no organisation, however perfect, which, when exposed to detailed scrutiny and examination, may not be found to be the subject of faults in one particular or another. In the present case I venture to think that the hon. Member for Lichfield has based a number of his criticisms on particular instances which have very little general existence, and I want at the outset of my remarks to try to put the matter in a more proper perspective.

There have been an enormous number of appeals dealt with in the last five years, and it is right to say firmly that the tribunals have operated not only with notable efficiency and justice to the individuals concerned, but with the very greatest consideration to the appellants. There are at present about 23 of these tribunals, some of them sitting in London, and some of them sitting regularly in one or other of 15 provincial centres. My hon. Friend has spoken about decentralisation, but I can assure him that, in fact, in all the important provincial towns in the country, 15 of them, these tribunals are sitting regularly and disposing of cases.

My hon. Friend referred to the unfortunate circumstances in one case with which he was familiar, when an appellant was unable to get his case disposed of on the day he was called. In 1948 no fewer than 34,225 appeals were in the lists for hearing before one or other of these tribunals. Fixing the time at which cases should be heard, fixing the places at which they should be dealt with conveniently to the appellant concerned, is not always a very easy matter. It is difficult sometimes to say how long a particular case is likely to take, difficult to be sure that the appellant will turn up when his case is called, difficult to know whether he is likely to bring witnesses, often irrelevant ones whom he insists the tribunal should hear.

But in spite of all these difficulties, the tribunals succeeded in so arranging their business that out of these 34,225 cases in the whole year, only 53 had to be adjourned for want of time. I wish we could achieve that remarkable result in the ordinary courts of justice. I think the hon. Member will agree that the tribunals are to be very much congratulated in this matter. In order further to meet the convenience of the appellants in future the tribunals will sit late to dispose of the list in that very, very small minority of instances in which that necessity arises. In such cases the appellant will be given the chance either of having his case adjourned to some other convenient date or of carrying on later in the evening to finish the case that day.

May I make one further comment on the question of decentralisation? I said that sittings take place in 15 different centres. In some of them tribunals are sitting throughout the month. In Birmingham, for instance, during November and December—and they were typical months—there was one tribunal sitting throughout the period, and another sitting for two weeks in each of these months.

Mr. C. Poole

What type of cases were they considering?

The Attorney-General

In the main, they were dealing with appeals by other ranks, because these form the vast majority of appeals; but in both months officers' cases were dealt with—for two days in November, and one day in December—and apparently that was sufficient to clear the list. It was thought in one case that the convenience of the appellant would be better served—I mention this without mentioning names, but the hon. Member will have in mind the case to which I am referring—by having the case heard in London rather than in Birmingham, and out of consideration for him, mistakenly, the case was listed in London. In future, to avoid any misunderstanding of that kind, arrangements will be made to notify officers, in case there may be any delay in hearing their cases in the provinces, that if they want to get a case on immediately it can be dealt with in London, but if they are prepared to wait perhaps a week or two longer it will be dealt with in the nearest provincial centre.

These being the facts in regard to the disposal of cases and the question of decentralisation, there does not appear to be any occasion for increasing the number of tribunals or altering their constitution. The presence of an officer on the tribunals dealing with officers' cases has been found most useful to ensure that the tribunals should be fully familiar with all the circumstances of an officer's employment. The expenses allowable to doctors are not noticeably dissimilar from those which may be allowed in the ordinary courts. I can reassure the hon. Member that the point will not escape further examination, and my noble Friend will look at it, in consultation with the Treasury, and also look most sympathetically at the suggestion that where the chairman of a tribunal certifies that some lay witness is essential, his expenses should be paid.

Looking at the matter broadly—and I come to the last point that was raised—I think it is right to say that after five years of nearly continuous operation, these tribunals, which are staffed by gentlemen not extravagantly remunerated, have performed a very difficult public service with notable success. On the question of delay, the position now is that almost all entitlement appeals have been finally disposed of. I think there are hardly any of any substance or merit which remain. There are assessment appeals, and every effort is being made to speed up the hearing of these. I hope that the House will feel that these tribunals have discharged a very difficult task in a way which greatly commands our confidence, and I take the opportunity of paying tribute to them for the great public service they have rendered.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock.