NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES)

HC Deb 29 January 1970 vol 794 cc1851-69

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Determination of Claims and Questions) Amendment Regulations 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 1749), dated 8th December 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December, be annulled. We have just had what I am sure will be looked upon as a glorious victory for democracy in this country.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That was a previous debate.

Mr. Fortescue

I believe that this debate will show that our Statutory Instrument procedure should be improved in the same way perhaps as other machinery could be improved.

These regulations, which appear innocent in themselves, were made about a month ago and seek to amend the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Determination of Claims and Questions) (No. 2) Regulations 1967. Those regulations sought to consolidate all the provisions in this matter, and no more than that and they were approved without objection by the House.

Now, scarcely two years later, the Government are bringing forward further regulations amending one or more of the paragraphs of the original regulations and are thereby depriving the citizen of an important right granted to him a long time ago. The Government are bringing in these regulations without a word of explanation why it is necessary to deprive the citizen of this right. The Explanatory Note to the Statutory Instrument simply states as a fact that these regulations are to be brought in. Therefore, any Opposition worth their salt are bound to move a Prayer against the regulations to find out the Government's motives.

I will briefly go through the facts, which are a little complicated. The original regulations provided in paragraph 14(1) that an application for leave to appeal on a point of law to the Commissioner of National Insurance from a decision of a medical appeal tribunal on an industrial injuries matter must first be made to a medical appeal tribunal. Then if the medical appeal tribunal refused leave to appeal, the appellant could appeal direct to the Commissioner. So far so good.

Paragraph 17(1) of the original regulations provided that if this appeal were made to the Commissioner, a request for a hearing must be granted by him. The one proviso was that in the case of an application in writing for leave to appeal made to the medical appeal tribunal, if the tribunal were satisfied that leave could be given the matter could be determined without a hearing; but if it decided to determine the matter without a hearing, leave to appeal from that decision of the tribunal still lay to the Commissioner. In those circumstances, the Commissioner was bound to grant a hearing.

This was the law before the new regulations were introduced. But the new regulations provide that in such circumstances the Commissioner, on considering the facts, can proceed to determine any question of law as though it were a question of law arising on appeal and can determine it without a hearing, simply on his own decision. He can write back to the appellant and say, "I do not think your case warrants a hearing from me. I choose to determine your case without a hearing, and here is my decision".

It is quite clear that for some reason which we do not know at the moment the Government have chosen to deprive a citizen of this right to a hearing which, under the original regulations, he was guaranteed. The Commissioner of National Insurance is a very eminent person appointed under the National Insurance Act, 1966, by a Minister. He is in no way a democratic official, he is a man of great eminence. His judgment can be accepted as being wise and impartial. Now we are told that somehow in the two years since the original regulations were made it is necessary to give the power to refuse a hearing to a citizen who appeals, although two years ago the Commissioner was bound to hear that citizen.

These are the facts of the case. Further on in the new regulations, in paragraph 2(2) another Amendment is made, which I do not wish to question because it is perfectly acceptable. By this the Commissioner is given this discretion but is inhibited from exercising it because he cannot use it: …unless the consent of the Secretary of State for Social Services and the claimant or the association has been given. This would seem to be a perfectly proper protection for the citizen. If the Commissioner wants to refuse a citizen a hearing he has to get the consent of the Secretary of State, which may not be very important, but he has also to get the consent of a citizen who is aggrieved. If that citizen says: All right, I am quite happy to waive my rights to a hearing then the Commissioner can give his decision without a hearing. No one would want to waste the time of the Commissioner on an unnecessary hearing.

In paragraph 2(1) of the regulations that right is not given. The Commissioner can without consulting the citizen say: I have got your appeal, I turn it down, and I will not listen to you in person. The point of this Prayer is to know why, in this very short period of two years, a right which was granted to the citizen in the middle of consolidating Regulations, some of which had been in force for a long time—a right which was not in dispute in 1967—is to be suddenly withdrawn by the Government through the introduction of these special regulations.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Bolton, West)

The hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has performed a service to the House by requesting that these regulations be debated. My union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, Las for some time been in correspondence with the Ministry about these regulations and there are a number of questions that ought to be asked before they come into effect. Although the House is very thinly attended, after Private Business, we must realise that for an individual who has been injured at work these regulations are a very vital piece of legislation. His whole life is affected.

The effects of these regulations can be far more important than a criminal or civil case. They can affect the sort of benefit that he will receive for the rest of his life. It is a well-established principle of law that justice must not only be done, but it must manifestly be seen to be done. My concern about the decision that a Commissioner can make a decision in the absence of the appellant, or his representatives, is that the appellant may feel that justice has not been seen to he done, since neither he nor his trade union adviser nor, under the terms of the regulations, his legal representative was present.

It is a very great power to give to a Commissioner when it is something that will affect the whole future life and income of an individual injured in the course of employment. My hon. Friend must give a very lucid explanation to the House of why the Ministry and the Government seek this power to make a decision in the absence of an appellant, his trade union and his legal adviser. There have been a number of appeals to the Commissioner and I will admit that sometimes they are not really on points of law, but because the man is aggrieved as a result of a decision of the medical appeals tribunal. There is some disquiet in many circles about how medical appeals tribunals reach their decisions. It is not the concern of this House whether that is right or wrong, but it is the concern of this House that an individual who feels aggrieved by a decision should have the right to go before another body, to be represented before it and to have his side of the case heard. That right, as the hon. Gentleman has told us, is being or could be taken away from him by virtue of these regulations.

The regulations are not only restricted to a decision on a point of law from the appeal of a decision of a medical tribunal. Even on that, I would dispute whether the Government have a right on a point of law to take that right away from an appellant. It goes further in saying, "or such an appeal". So it is not only the point of law on which the Commission can decide that this is not a case where there should be an oral hearing. It is also on the appeal itself that he can decide that there should not be an oral hearing. This would seem to me to be a case where the man who is injured at work, whose whole life and future earning prospects are affected, could very well feel aggrieved, and deeply aggrieved, that neither he nor his representatives could appear before the Commissioner so that he could hear justice being done in his case.

It is no use to a man to get a letter from the Commissioner saying, "We have decided so-and-so" if he has not appeared before the Commissioner. That runs counter to the whole idea of justice in this country, and I hope the House realises that, in cases such as medical appeals and appeals to the Commissioners, this is not just some branch of administrative law but that people's lives and livelihoods and incomes and future are being affected by what the Commissioner may or may not decide. This is important. It is not some minor administrative branch of the law. If a man is injured at work, he may never work again or he might have to take a job where he will never earn the same sort of money again. It is not his fault. He has been injured, possibly by the fault of the employer, possibly not. This is a very important consideration for the man and his family.

The other point of the regulations I would like clarification of is the second part, which was not referred to by the hon. Gentleman. This enables the Commissioner …to take into account certain medical advice or evidence without disclosing it to claimants if it is not in the claimants' interests to disclose it. At first sight, it seems an eminently sensible suggestion that, if a man is suffering from a disease or industrial injury whereby he might die in the very near future, it would not be in his interest to tell him so because that might seriously affect the short remainder of his life. I am sure that it is the Government's wish, lying behind this provision, that the man is not prejudiced in that way, that he is not seriously upset for the rest of his life.

But who decides? The Commissioner. But usually the Commissioner is a lawyer. He is not a doctor, and where one decides in a case, which is really being decided on medical evidence and on the prospects of the future life and enjoyment of life of the claimant, not to disclose something to him than materially affects his case, what criteria are adopted by the Commissioner before such information is given to the claimant or to his trade union advisers or legal advisers?

Some claimants do appear in person but these regulations are also going to face trade union and legal representatives appearing before the Commissioner. In the circumstances, they are fully entitled to this information so that they may decide whether or not to tell the claimant. I do not like the idea of a bureaucrat deciding what it is right to tell a claimant about his future life.

If a solicitor, legal adviser or trade union officer decides that it is a case where there should be an appearance before the Commissioner, the Commissioner should decide to have an oral hearing. The Government should realise that if a legal adviser decides to take a case as far as the Commissioner, or if a trade union goes to great expense on behalf of one of its members to take that course, that step will not have been taken lightly. It must genuinely be felt that it is a case which should be heard orally before the Commissioner, in the presence of a trade union representative, a solicitor or the claimant himself.

The hon. Member for Garston was right to describe this as a matter affecting the liberty of the individual. It might be said that the citizen's rights are being prejudiced by this Instrument. I am pleased that we have had an opportunity of examining the matter. If this Instrument is designed for administrative convenience, then the Government are wrong. It is more important for the claimant to see that justice is done on his behalf. That should override any thoughts of administrative convenience.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell (Blackpool, North)

The comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) are to be welcomed, particularly as he was speaking on behalf of a trade union. I was surprised that more of his trade union colleagues were not present to support him. I can only suppose that they do not fully appreciate what the Government are doing tonight.

We are discussing a serious limitation on the citizen's liberty; on his right of appeal and on his right to go before the Commissioner, a right which was written into a Statutory Instrument approved by Parliament only two or three years ago.

Few hon. Members with "surgery" or legal experience will under-estimate the powerful feelings which people have when they have suffered industrial injuries. Frequently they do not feel that they are getting justice. Governments of every complexion have, over the years, decided to use tribunals, for we could not use courts to make all the necessary decisions. We must, therefore, jealously guard the right of appeal that should exist under the tribunal system.

As we take away these decisions from our courts of law and hand them over to tribunals, we should recognise that, in many ways, we put a restriction on people's rights and liberties. Naturally, tribunals are more restrictive than courts of law. The courts have rights of appeal built into them, and normally they cannot restrict the ladder of appeal which is open to the citizen. Tribunals are open to the interference of Governments year by year, who can change the ground rules on which they work. Here we find a classic example of the Government changing their mind after only three years, and a limitation is to be imposed on the rights of appeal of a man and his union.

I have referred already to the anguish with which many people receive tribunal decisions. That is not surprising when one thinks of how small the decisions of county courts and the High Court are compared with those being taken by tribunals. A man may go before a medical tribunal with, perhaps, £2 or £3 at stake. Capitalised, that may be a sum which would take him into the High Court scale. There may be £2,000 or £3,000 in capital at stake in deciding whether he should receive an extra £2 or £3 a week. His family's future comfort and his self-respect depend on the tribunal's decision and, because of the importance of such decisions, we ought to be careful before taking away the right of appeal.

It should be remembered, too, that we take away not only the citizen's right of appeal but the Minister's right to require the Commissioner to look at the matter again. Under Section 17, the Minister may make that request. A number of hon. Members have had the experience of writing to the Minister, finding him sympathetic, and being informed that he has referred the matter to the Commis- sioner. Before, the Commissioner had to comply with such a request, whereas now he can refuse it.

I cannot think that hon. Members will regard this as a satisfactory state of affairs. If the Minister feels that such a request is appropriate, it cannot be right that the Commissioner should be able to turn it down, yet it appears from my reading of the regulations that that power is to go. By that loss, we lose our ability to help constituents who come to us. Previously, we could promise to ask the Minister whether he could help. Now, we cannot.

Before concluding my remarks, I want to put one or two questions to the hon. Gentleman. The first is to inquire what consultations there were with the unions before this step was taken. It is clear that there were objections by certain of them, but many others may not have realised what was happening. Did the Government say to the great industrial unions, "Our proposal is to take away this right of appeal. What have you to say about it?". I suspect that they did not. If they did, what replies did they receive from the unions? Was any union or any body involved in these industrial affairs prepared to agree that the Government were taking the right course?

Mr. Oakes

The Transport and General Workers' Union was not consulted, but it was aware of the Government's proposal, which it vigorously opposed.

Mr. Miscampbell

I am grateful for that intervention. That is what I would have expected from a union of that standing. It has good legal advice and excellent secretarial support. It would have noticed what was happening. But many unions will not have realised what was happening.

I should like to know whether the unions were consulted and what their attitudes were. If they were not consulted, were they alerted about what was happening so that they would have opportunities to make objections? They are the people who should have been asked. They will conduct these appeals, but they will find that they cannot go on.

We will all find it distressing to have to say to our constituents when they come to us, "I am very sorry, but the Government have taken away your right of appeal. You cannot put your point of view as you would wish. I know that you think you have been done out of £2 or £3 a week, I know that you have a grievance, but there is nothing that I can do to help."

Quite frankly, this does not strike me as being British justice or a sensible way of going about things. I cannot believe that administrative convenience in any way warrants this interference with a right that people should have, albeit if we have to pay a little extra to give them that right.

10.37 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) for giving me the opportunity to explain the thinking behind this Statutory Instrument. I fully understand the reasons why this Address has been moved and the reasons which have kept here the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), among others, fo speak tonight. It is a good thing that Members of Parliament take the opportunity to scrutinise the activities of the Executive, even in minor matters like this. However, I hope that I shall be able to give some explanation and reassurance to all hon. Members who have spoken.

I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West. He always keeps a close watch on the business of this House when the interests of the Transport and General Workers' Union might be affected, but, with its considerable expertise and experience in these matters, it really has nothing to fear.

First, I should like to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North about consultation, because that is clearly the beginning of the story. These regulations have been considered over a long period and passed by various bodies.

The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council agreed to these amending regulations. Four members on that Advisory Council represent employees' organisations or interests, four members represent employers' organisations or interests, and, apart from the chairman, most of the rest of the members are medically qualified professional people. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about employee representation and awareness. I can tell him that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council considered these amendments and agreed to them, as did the Council on Tribunals after consideration.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the trade unions were aware of what was going on, and whether any of them complained. There is a standard procedure for this kind of situation. Under it, the relevant committee of the T.U.C. is made aware of Government thinking on this kind of thing, and it was as a result of the T.U.C.'s knowledge that the T.G.W.U., of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West is a member, first took the matter up with us. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point. He also asked which unions had objected, and I can tell him that objections have been received from the T.G.W.U.

As questions have been asked on each of the three sections of these regulations, I think that it will be necessary to go through them one by one, to explain the present position, to explain the reasons for changing the situation as it was before these regulations came into force on 5th January, and to consider what the changes mean.

The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965, places on independent medical boards and medical appeal tribunals the responsibility for determining medical questions arising on claims for disablement benefit—for example, the degree at which any disablement resulting from the relevant loss of faculty arising from an industrial accident or prescribed disease should be assessed.

The decision of the medical appeal tribunal on these medical questions is final, but since 1959 there has been a right of appeal, subject to leave being given by a medical appeal tribunal or the Commissioner, on a point of law. Perhaps I might correct one error which has crept into the debate. The position which existed before 5th January did not come into effect in 1967, only two years ago, but has been operative since 1959, and was recommended by the Franks Committee as long ago as 1957.

I think that it would be useful at this stage to take up the points which have been raised about the disquiet and dissatisfaction of claimants when they find that they lose their case, or have no further right of appeal. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West that my experience as a constituency Member—and I think that this is the general experience of hon. Members—is that the disquiet arises not from difficulties about points of law, but generally from dissatisfaction at the degree of disability as assessed by a medical appeal tribunal. What we are discussing tonight has nothing to do with the medical assessment of a medical appeal tribunal. We are here dealing with appeals to the Commissioner on a point of law. The Commissioner has no jurisdiction on medical questions reserved for the medical adjudicating authorities. He can consider only whether the tribunal has erred on a point of law. The position is that if the Commissioner finds that the decision of the medical appeal tribunal is erroneous on a point of law, he cannot substitute a new decision. The case is referred to a medical appeal tribunal, usually differently constituted, for reconsideration and a fresh decision.

Under Section 42 of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1965, an appeal from a decision of a medical appeal tribunal may be made by the claimant, an association of employed persons of which the claimant was a member at the time of the relevant accident, or by the Secretary of State. Leave to appeal has first to be given by a medical appeal tribunal or the Commissioner.

The principal regulations, which are being amended here, provide for an application for leave to appeal normally to be made in the first instance to a medical appeal tribunal, either orally, at the hearing immediately after the decision, or in writing within three months of the tribunal's decision.

Hon, Gentlemen should notice that, even before these regulations were laid, the medical appeal tribunal had discretion whether or not to hold an oral hearing on the application, whereas the Commissioner had no such discretion. Therefore, there was a difference between the discretionary powers of the tribunal and those of the Commissioner. If the application is refused by the tribunal, or is not made within the specified time, it may be made direct to the Commissioner. If the application is granted, either by the tribunal or the Commissioner, an appeal may be made to and considered by the Commissioner.

Before the amending regulations were made, the Commissioner had no discretion in the matter of an oral hearing on application for leave to appeal and on appeals from decisions of medical appeal tribunals and was bound to hold an oral hearing whenever this was requested. It is worth noting that this procedure is not followed elsewhere in the national insurance and social security system. In fact, it is completely at variance with the system which is usually followed on claims for benefit under the National Insurance Acts. Such claims are decided by independent statutory authorities, consisting, first of insurance officers, and then the local tribunal and on a further right of appeal to the Commissioner.

In dealing with appeals from the local tribunal, the Commissioner has complete discretion whether or not to hold an oral hearing. This applies to a very large number of cases. Regulation 2(1) of the Amendment Regulations gives the Commissioner a similar discretion whether or not to hold an oral hearing when considering an application for leave to appeal or an appeal from a decision of a medical appeal tribunal.

So, first, we are bringing this very small area into line with the general situation in the rest of the national insurance system. Hon. Gentlemen have asked why this is necessary—

Mr. Miscampbell

I should have mentioned that this was a very small area. Can the Minister tell us how many appeals will be affected by the regulations? He may not have the information immediately available, but if he has, I am sure that the House would be glad to know the scale of the problem.

Mr. O'Malley

I can help the hon. Gentleman. In 1968, the total number of appeals on national insurance, industrial injuries and family allowance matters decided by the Commissioner was 2,510. In 1968, 23 cases came from the medical appeal tribunals to the Commissioner where the tribunal had granted an application for leave to appeal. Of 288 later applying to the Commissioner, out of a further total of 353 dealt with by the tribunal itself, an oral hearing was requested in 42 cases. These figures show that this constitutes a very small corner of the overall activities within the social security system, and that we are bringing it into line with that system.

Mr. Oakes

If it is so insignificant and uncostly, why not continue with it so that the individual can feel that he has had justice? This will not cost the Government and the country a large sum?

Mr. Fortescue

It is the same point. put somewhat differently. If this procedure, which is different from any other procedure throughout the national insurance system was specifically written into the system in 1957 and specifically included in the consolidating regulations in 1967, why suddenly after about two years is it necessary to bring it into line?

Mr. O'Malley

It has been operating for a number of years. In the House lawyers are always arguing on points of principle, which I often do not understand. I should have thought that as a lawyer my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West would jump for the principle, if there was a principle involved. The general point involved in the principle, and which has been the cause of no complaint in recent years, is the one where the Commissioner has this discretion.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

How many of the appeals were successful in the cases where permission to appeal was granted by the medical appeal tribunal?

Mr. O'Malley

I cannot tell the hon. Lady that without notice. I will certainly write to her and tell her.

Dame Irene Ward

Is it not extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should use the phrase "small area" if he does not know all the facts? I cannot see how he can define it as a small area in that case. In any event, a small area affecting only one person is very important. I am surprised that he does not know how many of the appeals were successful.

Mr. O'Malley

This is not the nub of of the argument. The nub of the argument is whether the Commissioner should have this discretion. The figures which are relevant are those of the number of people who ask for an oral hearing out of the total number of people who seek leave to appeal or who eventually appeal.

The House is right to ask: even if it is a question of general principle and the House is not satisfied that it is sufficient that this change is being made to bring this system into line with the general practice, what other grounds are there for the Government's decision to put forward these regulations? What other grounds are there, moreover, for the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to agree to this? What other grounds are there which caused the Council on Tribunals to change its mind, as did the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council?

The views of the Commissioners who are running the system must be taken note of. I will adduce other facts in a few minutes. The Commissioners are people with considerable legal experience who do an expert job, as I think the House will unanimously agree, efficiently and well.

It is clear from a number of the reports of the Commissioners that they are extremely dissatisfied with the existing situation in this small area where the automatic right to an oral hearing exists. For example, one Commissioner wrote—there are a number of complaints of this kind—saying this: …I think it right to draw attention pointedly to the extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs in cases of this type which not infrequently come before the Commissioner…As the Commissioner has pointed out on many occasions, the situation seems most unsatisfactory. The hearing before me was a complete waste of public time and money. It gave no satisfaction to the claimant who having been told that he could make a second application to the Commissioner thought that it would be of some use to him. He then goes on to a point which bears on the last point which my hon. Friend made: It may be that the waste of money resulting from such hearings does not amount to more than a few thousand pounds yearly"— for what it is worth, I give that point— At a time when all concerned with National Insurance work are under heavy pressure, it seems unfortunate that their time should be occupied by hearings which can produce no possible advantage to anyone. I hope that this decision will be brought to the attention of those responsible for the contents of the regulations". Obviously, any Government must take note of and consider suggestions and complaints made by the Commissioners. As I have said, we have found no dissatisfaction whatever with the workings of the system at large. Moreover, the Commissioners having expressed that sort of view, we also within the Department have expertise and knowledge of the system. I should add that the Departments' legal representatives appearing before the Commissioner on these applications for leave to appeal and appeals from decisions of medical appeal tribunals cannot recollect a single case in which an oral hearing has resulted in the disclosure of a point of law which was not evident from the documents.

Even when a claimant's application for leave to appeal discloses no point of law, it is normal practice for the Secretary of Slate's representative in the written submission to draw the Commissioner's attention to any possible prima facie point of law which seems to arise. Moreover, I understand that the Commissioner, when considering applications for leave to appeal, scrutinises the documents in detail to see whether there is any reasonable point which could be raised on the claimant's behalf.

I emphasise that the amendment does not take away from the claimant or his association in the slightest their right to have any application for leave or any appeal considered and determined by the Commissioner. The Amendment will avoid waste of public time and money, but, even more important, will avoid misunderstanding by and disappointment to claimants who in the past, no doubt, felt that, because the Commissioner had granted their request for an oral hearing of an application or an appeal, there was a chance that he would alter the assessment of disablement reached by the medical authorities, which, of course, he cannot do.

All hon. Members who have any length of experience, as all present in the Chamber tonight have, know what is the real trouble which concerns so many of our constituents in this unfortunate position when they come to us. They are not discussing points of law. The real trouble is that they are dissatisfield by the decision of the medical appeal tribunal, and that is not affected here. As I have said, the right to appeal is not affected by the regulations. We are merely giving this discretionary power to the Commissioner, in whom the House must vest full trust in the expert job which he does.

I turn now to the other two parts of the regulations about which questions were asked. The second amendment deals with the Commissioner's powers to deal with any point of law arising at the same time as granting an application for leave to appeal. Before the amendment was introduced, the Commissioner had no power where he gave leave to appeal to go on to deal with a point of law arising on the application unless the application was considered at an oral hearing, when he could do so provided that all the parties concerned agreed. The amendment simply enables the Commissioner at the time he grants an application for leave to appeal, whether or not an oral hearing is held, to proceed forthwith to deal with the point of law arising, providing that all the parties concerned agree.

The kind of situation one envisages here is when the Commissioner looks at the papers and says, "Yes, a point of law is involved here." I agree that he still has to have a hearing, and, if requested, an oral hearing. But this proposal cuts through the period of delay in this settlement of appeals. Very often, claimants feel that this kind of case goes on far too long. This new procedure avoids the considerable and unnecessary "double handling" of cases and the delay in the settlement of appeals, which is undoubtedly to the advantage of claimants.

I turn now to the question of the disclosure of medical information. It is the case that disclosure is always made to the representatives of the person concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West, said that the Commissioner is a legal man and not a doctor. I hope he will bear that in mind that all this does is to formalise a position where the medical tribunal, two-thirds of whose membership is composed of medical men anyway, obviously uses its discretion, and the amendment merely gives the Commissioner the right to continue to exercise that discretion. I think it would be agreed that this is useful and helpful to the individual concerned.

The effect of annulment would be to continue to expend public money and time unnecessarily, because the right of appeal is not taken away; to continue to cause misunderstandings by and disappointments to claimants who, in fact, were not raising any point of law; to continue the delays in the settlement of cases, the time for dealing with which could well be shortened without detriment to any party; and finally, in relation to the non-disclosure of harmful medical information, to follow a wholly unnecessary and costly distressing procedure. In the light of the explanation I have given, I hope that hon. Members will not press the Motion but will agree to withdraw it

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Fortescue

The House will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the courteous and patient way in which he has explained the action of the Government in seeking to make these amendments, but I, for one, do not find his explanation on the first and major point satisfactory and I do not feel able to withdraw the Motion.

The hon. Gentleman told us that the reason for this Amendment so soon after the opposite was enacted by the House is that the Commissioners, or the one Commissioner he quoted, think that it should be done. That is the only explanation we have heard. He has given no other fact which has changed since 1967, except that one Commissioner whom he quoted has given it as his opinion that the whole thing is a waste of time.

Mr. O'Malley

I quoted from one Commissioner but in fact a number of complaints from Commissioners have been made over the years on this point. I merely quoted a typical example.

Mr. Fortescue

Very well, the Commissioners have complained that the procedure is a waste of their time and the appellants' time. The Commissioners say that they are under heavy pressure and that these appeals are a waste of public time and money, although it is admitted that the amount of public money involved is very small. They also say that it would be administratively much more tidy if this Amendment were made. The Commissioner the hon. Gentleman quoted also said that such an appeal can be of no satisfaction to the claimant because he does not really understand what it is all about. The claimant thinks he has a claim on medical grounds and in fact he has not, because the appeal we are talking about is simply on a point of law, so that when he has had a further hearing he is unsatisfied. On this ground, the Commissioners say that the Amendment should be made.

For the House of Commons, this is an unsatisfactory explanation. It is as if an appeal judge in the High Court said, "I think that the hearing of appeals is a waste of time because often the appellant is dissatisfied because he does not understand what it is all about, and it would be administratively more tidy to abolish the High Court and have no appeals. That may be a slightly exaggerated analogy, but it is the sort of argument being used—that, because the Commissioners say that the procedure is a waste of time, the right of the individual should be inhibited or reduced.

It is far more important to discover from the citizen whether he thinks it a waste of time instead of taking the Commissioner's view that it is. How does the Commissioner know that the claimant is not dissatisfied? The mere fact that he has had another hearing will make him more satisfied than he was, as we all know from our constituency experience. A man who feels that he has been to the top man and had his case heard, even if it has not resulted in the decision he wanted, feels that he has done everything possible.

Mr. O'Malley

The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should not change this but extend the principle from this small area to the whole of National Insurance.

Mr. Fortescue

No, I am making the narrow point that in 1967 it was thought fit by this Government and this House to preserve this arrangement. Since then something has happened to persuade the Government that this ought not to be preserved. I have pressed the Under-Secretary to tell the House what this is, what has happened. The only thing he has said is that the Commissioners have complained. There is no other explanation. If he can give a further explanation I will gladly give way. I do not think that there is another explanation. It is simply that the Commissioners say it is a waste of time. If that is the reason for reducing the rights of the citizen I cannot advise my hon. Friends to do anything but vote in favour of the Prayer.

Mr. O'Malley

The Department obviously keeps the situation under review. In that review, in the experience of the legal section of the Department, it has been found that there is no case that it could see for supposing that this would change the normal position at all. We have to take some kind of judgment on this.

Mr. Fortescue

This system was perpetuated in 1967. Why was this one exception to the whole arrangement of the national insurance system made in the 1967 regulations? What has happened since to make the Government change their mind? I do not think that the explanation given can be accepted by the House.

Question put and negatived.