HC Deb 22 April 1953 vol 514 cc1361-70

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

1.15 a.m.

Mr. F. Beswick (Uxbridge)

The Act for which the Ministry of National Insurance is responsible provides for tribunals to which persons refused insurance or assistance benefit can appeal. These tribunals are composed of three persons with public spirit and with appropriate qualifications.

On 9th February, in answer to a Question of mine, the Minister of National Insurance said: Following a recommendation in the Report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace (1946–48), it was decided not to appoint blind persons to these Tribunals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 6.] I want to ask the Minister to reconsider the implication of this unfair, hurtful and unnecessary ban. Let me say at once that I make no party criticism here, because the original decision was taken in good faith by predecessors of the present Minister, and no doubt maintained in equally good faith by him.

My case is that the original decision to exclude from this field of public service a category of fellow citizens was unfair and hurtful to those excluded, and not helpful to society as a whole. I believe it to have been conceived in the cloistered atmosphere of a Government Department in an excessively legalistic spirit, and without giving full weight to warmer human considerations, and without a proper assessment of public opinion. The general public do not know of this ban upon a section of their fellows, and I hope that this Adjournment debate will inform some of them, and that they will be led to protest.

The justification for this discrimination rests, according to the Minister's reply, upon one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But no mention at all was made in that Report of appeals tribunals. Indeed, these tribunals were not even constituted when the Commission heard evidence. Moreover, it is clear from their Report that the particular recommendation about the election of justices was made only with reluctance, and after weighing considerations for and against, which were very evenly balanced.

The Report states that the Commission came down on the side of a ban because Finally, we think that litigants and especially defendants whose reputation and whole future is at stake could not be expected to feel confidence that the value of evidence could clearly be appraised by a justice who has not had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. Important as are the matters which come before the appeal tribunals, it cannot be said that to the same extent they settle the "reputation and whole future" of the appellant who appears before them.

It is, of course, impossible to say what recommendation might have been made by the Royal Commission had appeals tribunals been included within their terms of reference, but it is completely wrong to claim that there is any evidence that they would have recommended the ban against blind persons being extended to this other sphere of public service.

I agree that defendants before a bench or appellants before a tribunal should have complete confidence in those who have to assess evidence and give judgments, but there is no evidence at all that any appellant before a tribunal has lacked confidence in the tribunal of three because one happened to be sightless. There is, however, much evidence that thousands of ordinary men and women have great confidence in the judgment and advice of individual blind persons.

I suppose I have no more and no less blind within my own constituency than is the case in other areas of the country, but it so happens that there are in the Uxbridge division two individual blind persons who are both extremely active in public service. Each is elected to his respective local authority by votes which put him at the top of the poll, and above sighted colleagues of the same political persuasion. To each of these individuals hundreds of people go during the course of a year for guidance and advice.

It seems to me not only unjust, but completely and absolutely untenable to suggest that appellants appearing before these people would not have confidence in their judgment, and I give these, of course, only as examples.

It is said that a person must be able to observe the demeanour of a witness before assessing his reliability. I do not believe that to be true. Indeed, it is sometimes the case that the demeanour of a witness might very well enable him to get away with untruthful evidence. In any case, I think it can be established that a blind person develops other senses to such a degree that lack of sight is more than compensated.

Moreover, I understand that it is not essential for an appellant to appear before these tribunals in person. I even have a case in which an appellant was represented by a blind person, who, incidentally, won the case. If representation is permitted then clearly it cannot be held that it is of overwhelming importance for the demeanour of an appellant to be observed and analysed.

It is also argued that a blind person is at a disadvantage in being unable to read the relevant papers. Certainly, if the papers are put before such a person at the last moment he or she would be at a disadvantage, but so indeed would a sighted person. The difficulty of reading and digesting papers is presented to blind persons in connection with other work—on local authorities for example, or even in this House. But, clearly, a blind person is able to know and assimilate the contents of written documents. Indeed, the remarkable thing is that, un-distracted by extraneous affairs, often a blind person more completely assimilates documents than does a sighted colleague.

There is just one final ground on which I plead with the Minister to reconsider this ban. Discrimination against human beings on account of characteristics over which they have no control is one of the cruellest and most frustrating factors in human affairs.

We have known such discrimination because of the colour of an individual's skin or because of the nature of his religion. We have had discrimination— and it was not the least cruel—because individuals had not been to particular schools or had not received a certain type of education. Gradually, through the years—and it is greatly to our credit —we have been eliminating these bans and bars from our social life.

But here, in this discrimination against blind persons, we are building up another ban, another bar against individual human beings on account of a characteristic for which they have no responsibility whatsoever. I do not believe that the depth of feeling in this matter was appreciated in the Government Department in which this ban was originally decided upon.

Maybe there are not many sightless persons who will seek to serve on these tribunals even if the ban is lifted. But the fact that there is a complete and absolute bar against even a few individuals, who are otherwise highly qualified, is an injustice and a wound to the whole of the blind community.

It may well be that in appointing an individual blind person their other qualifications would need to be especially high. I do not think that the blind community would quarrel with that. What is completely wrong is that, irrespective of the character, judgment and high qualities of individual persons they are now told that they cannot serve if they happen to have lost their sight.

There is the additional fear that now that the ban has been extended beyond the justices of the peace to whom it was originally confined, it might well be, in the future, extended still further to cover, for example, service upon local authorities or even service in this House. Most of the arguments advanced in support of the original ban can be stretched to cover these other activities.

I do, therefore, ask the Minister, in so far as he has power to give the assurance, to make it clear that no such extension is even contemplated by Her Majesty's present Government, and that the contributions of blind persons in public life generally are so highly prized that it would be unthinkable that the ban should be extended further. I ask him again to give an undertaking that he will reconsider, with the utmost care and sympathy, in the light of this debate, the particular ban against some of our fellows, serving equally with the rest of us, upon these Appeal Tribunals.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Leith)

I should like, on behalf of my Scottish colleagues, to add a word to the plea that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). I have been putting down Questions for a considerable time about the employment of blind persons, and there is no doubt that many of them, despite their brilliance and undoubted ability, suffer great handicaps, and I know that the blind people of Scotland feel very keenly about this ban. What we have said to them is: "We are going to penalise you because you are sightless," and they feel it very much indeed.

This is not a party political matter. We must all accept our share of the responsibility for the decision that was made when the Act was introduced, but I think the time has now come for a change to be made, and I want, on behalf of the blind people, to make an earnest appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary at least to say something that will give hope to and help to remove from the blind people of this country what they feel to be an undeserved slight.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not argue that blind people are not capable of doing this work. We know perfectly well that some of them are, but it may be in his mind that members of the public who come before the tribunals may feel that they were handicapped. The hon. Gentleman may be concerned, in the common phrase, to see that not only justice is done but that it should be seen to be done. I would urge him to consider that there might have been, at the time when the administration of National Insurance was expanding a great deal, doubts about the public reaction to the presence of blind people on bodies such as these, but I am inclined to think that, by now, the public are beginning to understand what marvellous mastery over life and over civic duties blind people have attained.

I do not believe that today there would be, except on the part of an unreasoning few, any feeling that a tribunal was not doing its work properly because a sightless person was a member, and I believe that, if there is any such feeling, what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has said tonight will help to dispel it. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give consideration to the plea which he has expressed.

1.29 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton)

I think it is better that I should intervene at this stage to deal with the important case that has been put by the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart). I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Uxbridge has raised it now, because he was a distinguished Member of the preceding Government, and what he is asking me to do tonight is to reverse the decision reached by his colleague the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill).

In matters of appointments to judicial tribunals it is, in our view, very important that there should be continuity between succeeding Governments. If we had the situation in which one Government turned certain people off the tribunals, for sound or unsound reasons, another Government reversed the decision and a later one restored it, it would make the position unstable. As I see it, it would be improper for us not to follow the policy laid down by our predecessors in this matter unless a very strong case had been made out for changing that policy.

I do not believe that case has been made out. The hon. Member for Uxbridge quoted from the Royal Commission presided over by a very eminent judge of the High Court, as he was then, and which had upon it able men from all parties and all occupations, representing all sections of the public. That Royal Commission, in paragraph 135 of its Report, said: The question we have had to ask ourselves is whether the duties of a justice can be carried out with satisfaction to himself and to the public by a blind man. It went on to state the three considerations which had weighed with the Commission: First, it is necessary, if a magistrate is to be deemed capable of fulfilling all the functions of his office, that he should be able to read documents and examine plans. If he has not this ability, he is necessarily debarred not only from attesting documents, but (what is much more important) from forming an independent opinion, in the course of a trial, based on the examination of plans and documents or on a comparison of handwriting. Secondly, great importance is always attached in our courts to the observation of a witness's demeanour by those who act as judges of facts. In order that this observation should be wholly reliable it seems to us that it must depend on sight as well as hearing. Finally, we think that litigants, and especially defendants, whose reputation and whole future are sometimes at stake, could not be expected to feel confident that the value of the evidence for and against them would be correctly appraised by a justice who had not the advantage of seeing the witnesses. These considerations compel us to say that no person who is blind ought to be appointed a justice, or, if he is already a justice, ought to continue to sit. I purposely read that out because that is a very strong expression of opinion, a decided expression of opinion. The hon. Member for Uxbridge made some remarks which might have led some people to think there had been a degree of indecision in that Report by the Royal Commission. From the paragraphs I have read out it is perfectly clear. Can we distinguish the position of the justice of the peace from that of the members of the National Insurance local appeal tribunals and of the appeals tribunals appointed by the National Assistance Board? That is what the hon. Member is asking us to do. I imagine that he is not asking us tonight not to follow that Royal Commission's recommendations on justices. Clearly, it would be improper for me to comment upon that possibility and I do not believe it is seriously argued in the House.

These local appeal tribunals, when dealing with matters of industrial injuries, are dealing with problems similar to those which, prior to the passing of the Act which stands to the honour of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), were decided on questions of fact by county court judges—a far more important tribunal than that of a magistrates' court. These tribunals have to deal with extremely difficult questions of fact, as well as difficult questions of law.

In a second category of cases, these local tribunals are having to deal with claims for retirement pensions where it is of the utmost value to observe the demeanour of the witnesses and to hear them tell their stories on question of fact. I rather thought that the hon. Member for Uxbridge, at Question time recently, suggested that these appeal tribunals were not of the same importance as magistrates' courts. I would remind him that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the greatest financial penalty that can be imposed by a magistrates' court is a fine of £500, whereas in these cases of retirement pension, on which way the decision goes rests whether men or women shall have pensions that have an actuarial value of more than £1,500. For these reasons the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West, felt that she could not distinguish the case from that put by the Royal Commission.

As I see it, the strength of the Royal Commission's case was really this: that there was a danger, in their view, that those who appeared before the tribunal at which questions of fact were judged might feel that they did not have full consideration of their case if a member of the tribunal was totally incapacitated either by blindness or by deafness. That was the view of the Royal Commission, and bearing in mind those words that were quoted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham, East, words ascribed to Lord Ellenborough and used by Lord Hewart, "It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done," in my right hon. Friend's view we must follow in this matter the ruling laid down by the right hon. Lady.

There was a point that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge made which I should like to correct. He stressed that often the appellant did not appear. Let me remind the House that the appellant in all these cases has the right to appear, at all hearings of the tribunals.

Mr. Beswick

That is not essential.

Mr. Turton

It is not essential, but he has the right to appear. There was another point the hon. Gentleman made that was a little dangerous. He said that there were three members of the tribunal and the blind person would be only one. Frequently, however, a tribunal is formed by two members, and can, by agreement between the parties, be formed by a single member. I want to correct what may be a false impression created by what the hon. Gentleman said.

I wish no unfortunate impression to be created by this debate or by the facts I have had to give to the House. I appreciate, as much as any of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, the great work blind men and women can do and do do in the discharge of their duties to the community. When it is a question of appointing blind people to bodies with functions that are advisory and not judicial in character quite different considerations apply. It is a fact that blind people have often qualities which are particularly valuable in advisory posts.

Blindness is not a bar to appointment to local advisory committees of my Ministry, and the chairman of one of the local advisory committees, whose area actually includes, I believe, part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Uxibridge, is a blind person, of first-rate ability.

Mr. Beswick

Responsible for nominating people to those tribunals.

Mr. Turton

The responsibility for choosing members of these tribunals rests in the hands of the Minister, who frequently takes advice from the Lord Chancellor's office. The Ministry has no intention of extending the ban beyond its present limits. If the interests represented on the local advisory committees —the employers' associations, the trade unions, the trades council federations, local authorities and other nominating bodies—think fit to nominate more blind people the next time the committees are constituted, my right hon. Friend will be very glad to consider them.

I hope that the hon. Member will realise the reasons which have led my right hon. Friend to follow the decision of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West, and I hope that blind people throughout the country will realise that the service which they have given to the nation, and will continue to give, is highly valued by every member of this Government and, I am sure, by all hon. Members.

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes to Two o'Clock, a.m.