HC Deb 28 June 1911 vol 27 cc429-31
Mr. HAMILTON BENN

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether it is the general practice of the War Office to refuse all claims for compensation for diseases not scheduled under the Act even in cases where it is certified by doctors appointed by the War Office that the disease in question is directly attributable to the nature of the claimant's employment?

Colonel SEELY

It is, of course, not the general practice of the War Office to refuse to consider all claims for compensation for diseases not scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But if a particular disease is not mentioned in the Act claims for compensation must be considered quite apart from the provisions for compensation under the Act.

Mr. HAMILTON BENN

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it equitable that disablement certified by the Army doctors to be directly attributable to the nature of the employment should be debarred from compensation owing to the disease being omitted from the schedule, and will steps be taken to amend the Act?

Colonel SEELY

The answer is as I have stated it, and we cannot vary it, unless the House alters the Act itself.

Mr. HAMILTON BENN

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the case of ex-Stoker Trist, who is permanently incapacitated by paralysis, the result of an attack of acute transver myelitis, which has been certified by two Army doctors to be directly attributable to the nature of his employment as a stoker; whether he is aware that ex-Stoker Trist has nevertheless been refused adequate compensation on the technical ground that myelitis is not a scheduled disease under the Act; and will he state what steps he intends to take in the matter?

Colonel SEELY

The Army medical authorities do not concur in the view that myelitis is a disease to which stokers are peculiarly liable, and the Treasury after consulting their medical referee are not satisfied that the disease from which Trist suffers is attributable to his employment. Trist has already received injury pay under departmental regulations for six months at the rate of half his average weekly earnings, and has been awarded a compassionate grant of £10. I regret that the regulations do not allow the Army Council to grant a pension in this case.

Mr. HAMILTON BENN

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is reasonable to make that statement, when it has been certified by two Army doctors as directly arising out of the nature of the employment, and would he consider it reasonable compensation if it was the case of a private firm?

Colonel SEELY

As I have explained on previous occasions, some doctors said it was due to his employment, but other doctors and finally the Treasury referee gave it as their opinion that it was not. If the hon. Gentleman asks me whether it is a hard case I say at once it is, and it is for that reason that a compassionate grant of £10 has been given. It is the case that he cannot be given a pension without altering the law.

Mr. JOHN WARD

Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Home Secretary to this case with a view to this disease, which is now known to be a disease of this particular trade, being properly scheduled under the Act and compensation given?

Colonel SEELY

Certainly, I will draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the case.