HC Deb 09 December 1920 vol 135 cc2387-8

asked the Minister of Pensions if pensioner J. Surridge, of 88, Victoria Road, Edmonton, who lost a leg in the War, has been out of work for two years; whether he and his wife and two children are living on £2 14s. 6d. pension and unemployment allowance; whether he has been suffering during the last two years from an artificial leg which is too heavy and too short, and of which the harness is burdensome; whether the Minister of Pensions in the first instance ordered this unsatisfactory essential limb which has caused him so much trouble; whether he has asked for the new light metal limb; whether this has been refused and Surridge told that he must take a Blatchford No. 3; whether a Blatchford No. 3 limb weighs from 7 to 12 1bs.; whether it is very liable to break if made lighter than 7 1bs.; whether Mr. Surridge is a small, light man; whether the Blatchford No. 3 is carried from the shoulder, of which method Mr. Surridge has two years' unsatisfactory experience; and whether, in view of the Ministry's statement that pensioners are allowed to choose any limb in the Ministry's approved list which is suitable from a surgical point of view, there is any reason why this pensioner, who has suffered for two years from a bad artificial limb, should not be given the light artificial limb for which he has asked, and, if so, what?


I regret that I have not yet been able to complete my inquiries into this case, but I will communicate fully with my hon. and gallant Friend at an early date.