HC Deb 21 July 1919 vol 118 cc911-2
91. Mr. BOTTOMLEY

asked the Pensions Minister whether he will give an explanation of the circumstances in which a lieutenant invalided out of the Army suffering from neurasthenia was recently directed by telegram, sent to a hotel at which he was staying, to proceed to the London Lock Hospital, Harrow Road, which is an institution for women suffering from venereal disease; whether, having been certified by two medical men employed at his own expense as free from such disease, and having protested against being sent to the men's branch of the Lock Hospital, situated in Soho, to which he had been referred from the women's institution, he was informed by the Ministry of Pensions that an officer's unreasonable refusal to undergo treatment renders him liable to have his pension reduced by half; whether he will say who is responsible for this course of action; and what reparation is being made to the officer in question?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir L. Worthington-Evans)

I am glad to have the opportunity of expressing publicly my deep regret for the annoyance and trouble given to this officer.

The doctors are not able to decide affirmatively what is the cause of his illness. He was sent to a tuberculosis specialist and examined by him, but the report was negative; he advised that the officer should be admitted to hospital and kept under medical observation in case the illness was occasioned by general paralysis.

Arrangements were made for a private room at the Lock Hospital, where it was intended that the specialist in general paralysis should make the desired observations so as to exclude general paralysis, as tuberculosis had been excluded, if such turned out to be the case. The telegram never ought to have been sent, although no serious consequence would have arisen if it had been opened by the officer. It was, however, opened at his request and read to him on the telephone by someone at his hotel.

With regard to the letter the officer came to the Ministry after the letter was written and before it was delivered, and saw one of the doctors. The doctor heard his explanation and withdrew the letter and apologised for the telegram. The letter ought not to have been sent, but being in the post could not be recalled. There was no question of unreasonable refusal to undergo treatment; no treatment had been decided upon. The officer was asked to go to the hospital for observation. Treatment could not be decided upon until after the result of the observation was known. The officer himself has since proved that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that he is suffering from general paralysis due to venereal disease. I fully accept that conclusion.

The clerk at the Ministry who was responsible for the letter will not in future be engaged in this class of work, and steps have been taken to ensure that no warnings of withdrawal or reduction of pension shall be made until the case has been considered by a principal medical officer.

I have myself seen this officer when he called at the Ministry. I have expressed to him my deep regret for both the telegram and the letter, and I have offered to refund to him the expenses to which he has been put in obtaining the medical certificates referred to.

I explained to him what I have now told the House, and I trust that the blunder made by an administrative clerk will not discredit the really excellent and efficient work done for thousands of officers and men by the medical officers employed by the Ministry.