§ 6. Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that William Smith, Case 6/MS/7064, residing at 71, Meeting Street, Wednesbury, made application for a disability pension due to pulmonary tuberculosis; that the medical report of 10th June, 1921, shows that the disability was attributable to war service; that the degree of disablement was certified to be nephritis 10 per cent., and T. B. 100 per cent.; if so, why the Ministry refused to accept the opinion of its own medical advisers and opposed the application; is he aware that in 869 consequence of this opposition the Pensions Appeal Tribunal rejected the man's appeal; and will he reconsider this case?
§ Major TRYONThe decisions of the Tribunal are final, and I am, therefore, precluded from reopening this case.
§ Mr. SHORTWhy, although the Ministry's own medical officer was in favour of this man's claim, has the Ministry failed to accept it and opposed the man's application before the Appeal Tribunal? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a satisfactory policy?
§ Major TRYONIt is not right to say that we opposed the claim. We were unable to grant the claim. All the information was given to the Appeal Tribunal, and the most satisfactory way of dealing with a case of grave doubt is to have a decision by an independent body.
§ Mr. SHORTWhy could not the right hon. Gentleman accept the decision of the medical officer, before whom he compelled the man to go, which is in favour of the man?
§ Major TRYONIn a case of grave doubt we have to go into the matter fully. As we were unable with the differences of opinion, to come to a decision, it was decided by an independent tribunal, which seems to me to be the fairest way.
§ Mr. SHORTWhat is the virtue in compelling a man to go before a medical officer whose decision is not accepted?