§ 4. Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in how many cases in the 12 months to the 892 latest convenient date applications for war disability pensions have been made and refused under the seven years' rule which places the onus of proof upon the applicants.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe latest available estimated figures are those for the year ending 30th June, 1961, in which some 1,250 claims made over seven years after death or discharge resulted in awards and some 1,460 were rejected.
§ Mr. HaleWill the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position in relation to this rule, in view of the fact that the Statute of Limitations was provided to be used normally as a reasonable device to prevent fraudulent claims, or claims made after so long a period that the evidence has been destroyed? In his case, the right hon. Gentleman nearly always has all the evidence, and this rule is being used to prevent applicants from maintaining a claim from chronic diseases the causes of which are unknown.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterA good deal of that supplementary question relates to the next Question to be asked by the hon. Gentleman. However, it does not seem to me that the figures I have just given the hon. Gentleman, when one remembers that they relate to service which in the great majority of cases ended at least 16½ years ago, indicate that there is anything the matter.
§ 5. Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in view of the hardship caused to applicants for war disability pensions caused by the seven-year rule, he will now introduce measures for its abrogation.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAs the hon. Member is, I am sure, aware, even in the case of claims outside the seven year period the claimant is entitled to succeed if on the evidence there is any reasonable doubt whether the conditions are satisfied. I do not think there is any hardship. On the contrary, this procedure compares favourably from the applicant's point of view with procedure in the civil courts or before other tribunals, and is an example of the preference deliberately, and, in my view, properly, accorded to disabled ex-Service men.
§ Mr. HaleWould it not be more simple, practical and prudent for the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the necessary sanction to send a circular to pensions tribunals and appeal tribunals to say that they were under no obligation to apply this rule in cases where they considered that great hardship would result or where the operation of the rule might prevent justice being done?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI could only consider that if I were satisfied that the present rule was working unfairly and inequitably. As I have said, I do not think that it is.