§ 82. Mr. MYERSasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. William Rhodes, of 25, Pembroke Street, West Bowling, Bradford, who, on receipt of his first calling-up notice in July, 1916, went before the Bradford local tribunal and claimed exemption on account of the fact that he was blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and suffered from varicose veins and hammer toes (these disabilities being certified by two doctors), and, on the claim being rejected, appealed to the central appeal tribunal without success, and afterwards joined the Army on 22nd January, 1917, and was discharged physically unfit on 29th January, 1917; if he is aware that as a result of the decision of the appeal tribunal Mr. Rhodes, who had previously conducted a school for shorthand, typewriting, and bookkeeping, sold his business, which had cost him £360, for £160 under an agreement dated 6th December, 1916, which agreement stipulated that he could not open another school for three years; that on the expiration of the term of three years Mr. Rhodes applied to the Civil Liabilities Committee for assistance to enable him to purchase typewriting machines and apparatus to open another school, and that after examination of his books the Civil Liabilities Committee notified him that a grant of £50 would be made to him; if he is further aware that, after waiting until July, 1917, Mr. Rhodes wrote 2210 for the money, and thereafter wrote 13 letters altogether before receiving a reply, when he was informed that a mistake had been made and that no grant would be paid to him on the ground that his business was not sold until after he had been demobilised (although, in fact, he sold his business on 6th December, 1916, as the agreement proves, and he was not demobilised until 29th January following); and whether he will cause further inquiries to be made into this case with the object of obtaining further consideration for Mr. Rhodes?
§ Sir R. HORNEI have been asked to reply to this question. The facts mentioned in the question are not entirely in accordance with the evidence before the Civil Liabilities Department. I am causing further inquiries to be made as to this, and will communicate further with the hon. Member on the subject.