A game of Ministry roulette

PERSONA COLUMN ROLAND GANT

In July 1967 John Rowan Wilson, in his 'Medicine' column in the 'Spectator,' described the hospital experiences of a London publisher injured in a car crash. In this article the injured man writes of his subsequent experiences with the Ministry of Social Security. Roland Gant is the editorial director of William Heinemann.

On 16 June 1967 a motor accident sent me to hospital and convalescence for six months.

As a fully paid-up. National Insurance card- carrying member of the working community I was entitled to sickness benefit. Medical cer- tificates (slightly late, because I was organ- ising my breathing rather than my social security) were signed by a physician in the London teaching hospital which was putting me together again, Humpty-Dumpty-wise, after a provincial hospital had decided that I had fallen off the wall for ever. These certifi- cates were sent to Office A of the Ministry of Social Security (in the district where I live) by Maureen, the colleague who deals with staff matters in my company. In September 1967 I was in France, on the advice of the hospital staff who had recommended a dry, sunny cli- mate. My relatives there had offered me a house for nothing and my wife's family doctor promised to keep an eye on me.

In November Maureen received a letter from Ministry Office B (in the north of Eng- land), informing her that I would 'be dis- qualified from receiving benefit for any period' during which I was 'absent from Great Britain except where Regulations or Reciprocal Agreements otherwise provide' and went on to explain in an underlined passage that a claimant must only leave the country 'for the specific purpose of-being treated for a disease which was contracted or a-disablement which occurred before he left the former terri- tory.' I was asked for a certificate of treatment, the nature of the incapacity (which the Minis- try already knew) and the exact period during which I 'had been incapable of work since my arrival in France.' A form had to be com- pleted and returned to Office B. Certificates from the hospital and from my GP were sent.

Some weeks later I was asked to attend Office C 'for an interview.' This turned out to revolve around the inescapable fact that Offices A, B and C had lost documents relating to my case. Duplicates were requested and I said that my word would have to be taken as I did not intend to bother busy hospitals and doctors yet again. I wrote out and signed a statement to this effect.

Early in January, 1968, a letter from Office D asked me to complete and sign a form re- lating to national health service contributions and 'please return as soon as possible.'

Meanwhile, from Office C, where I had made a signed statement about the lost documents, a letter arrived in mid-January telling me that if I did not furnish duplicate certificates 'within seven days, no further action will be taken on Your claim.' Maureen replied to this in a long letter recalling that all documents had been sent to Office A in September, a further cer- tificate to the same office in October and a letter to Office B to which there had been no reply.

On 23 February Office A again asked where I had been outside Great Britain, why, and what about the French "medical certificates? This and other communications took some time to reach me as Office A sent them to the wrong postal district.

Maureen arranged that in future everything would be dealt with by Office C and three weeks later she telephoned to find out what was happening. At the end of March she sent a letter to Office C setting out yet again the details of the accident and certificates.

On 23 April, a cheque was sent to me in settlement of part of the claim. After further telephone conversations, Office C informed me that 'the Insurance Officer has considered your claim for sickness benefit for the period in France and has decided that benefit is not pay- able . . . if you wish to appeal to the Local Tribunal . . . within twenty-one days' etc. Overleaf were set out the by now familiar ob- jections—not having gone to France speci- fically for treatment etc. (The National In- surance and Industrial Injuries (France) Order 1958.) I applied for the form on which to ap- peal and gave a summary of what had hap- pened. It was now exactly a year since the accident.

When I received the appeal form another letter came from the same office (C) which began: 'As was notified to you in a previous letter you were not entitled to sickness benefit for the period you were abroad. . . . You may . . . be entitled to pay contributions voluntarily at the Class 3 rate. . .

Deprived of sickness benefit, told to buy his own stamps, this Class 3 citizen acknowledged both letters and ventured a protest: 'May I draw your attention to paragraph 3 of form BF 31 informing me that I could appeal to the Local Tribunal? . . . Your letter reads to me like an assumption that any appeal I make will be rejected.' Even a BF worm can turn.

I had now been at work again for over six months, but still paid periodic visits to the teaching hospital. When I mentioned what was going on, or not going on, a helpful physician wrote direct to Office C setting out yet again the course of events, the treatment and the recommended convalescence in the sun which had helped the patient.

That was in the last week of June 1968. Everyone concerned retreated to prepared positions and went on holiday. Total silence was broken by Maureen on 10 September when she telephoned Office C and was told that my complete file had been sent to Office B in the north of England.

I was asked to appear before the tribunal at Office E on 26 September at 2 p.m. I bad a little difficulty in parking my car and arrived ten minutes late. The tribunal sat forty minutes later, by which time I had read through the three typewritten pages of the case. Paragraph 1 set out the reasons for my disqualification; paragraph 2 my reason for appealing; para- graph 3 gave the 'Relevant provisions in Acts and regulations'; paragraph 4 'Relevant re- ported decisions of the Commissioner' (in figures, strokes and letters): paragraph 5 was a sixteen-line summary of most of what had happened; while paragraph 6—'Insurance Offi- cer's submission'—set out (very fairly, in seventy lines) the pros and cons of the claim- ant's case and that of the Ministry.

The three-man tribunal was under the chair- manship of a courteous barrister. A lady from the Ministry, who was referred to as 'Madam from the Ministry,' was there to watch the score. When I thought I had discovered a flaw in the insurance officer's submission she charmingly agreed that the syntax might be faulty but my reasoning was unsound because I had assumed a sub-clause to be a separate clause. The cross-questioning was vigorous and close. My medical evidence was accurate but technical and when it had been noted and some spelling verified I was asked to give it again

in lay terms. After nearly an hour of 'But would you say . . .' and '1 submit, Mr Chair- man ...' I began to enjoy myself, waving docu- ments, wagging a pencil, and generally fancy- ing myself as Perry Mason.

Madam Ministry and I were asked to ad- journ while the tribunal debated the evidence.

We chatted over steaming Ministry tea and when we were called back I was told that the tribunal would recommend to the minister

that my appeal be upheld. I was disappointed not to leave, macintosh over head, through a mass of press photographers.

Next day I received a transcript of the pro- ceedings and whoever did it made a splendid job of compressing accurately my burbled evidence. One phrase I particularly liked was 'claimant appeared to be a reliable witness and we accept his evidence of fact, having no reason whatsoever to doubt it.' It was also made clear that the Minister of Health would have the last word.

That was at the end of September 1968. Silence took over once more and on 19 Novem- ber I sent a photocopy of the tribunal's report to Office C with a short letter asking what had happened. I received a reply a little over two months later, regretting the delay in answering but saying that the minister had allowed my appeal. a cheque was on the way and I would not have to buy those missing inkurance stamps at Class 3 rates.

Taxpayers' money is not frittered away on malingerers who scuttle away to foreign ports:

'162,000 Ministry of Social Security employees are there to see that the halt and the lame do not limp south of Scilly. As for me, I now have to prove to the inland revenue that the sickness benefit is not taxable. Another game of Ministry roulette is about to begin.