44. Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that, after having been passed B 1 at the age of 57, Mr. Nicholas Pogose was gazetted as second-lieutenant with the 26th Lushai Indian labour company on the 17th December, 1917; that he served with his unit at Roisel and Bray, and in 1919 was ordered to Ypres and served with two Chinese companies at St. Julien and 627 Langemarch, where his eyes were poisoned by mosquitoes and he was ordered to be in readiness to go into hospital next day; that a medical board in November, 1922, stated that Mr. Pogose's disabilities had passed away and, in consequence, his pension and allowances ceased; that in June, 1923, the appeal tribunal reversed this decision, and pension was restored and subsequently increased from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent.; that at Mr. Pogose's last medical board on 20th September, 1927, the medical officers stated that the sight of his right eye was completely lost and that they did not like the appearance of the other eye; why pension has been consistently refused, in view of the weight of evidence of poisoning of the eyes by mosquito bites; and whether, as Mr. Pogose's sight is deteriorating very rapidly, he will forthwith take steps to reopen the matter and make some allowance to this man, who has suffered severely both in health and circumstances?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley)My hon. and gallant Friend would appear to be misinformed as to the facts of this case. The officer in question is in receipt of pension for heart trouble and arteriosclerosis, in accordance with the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. His further claim in respect of eye trouble was considered and rejected by the Tribunal, and their decision is final. As my right hon. Friend has already informed the hon. and gallant Member, there are no grounds on which he would be warranted in adopting the course suggested in the last part of the question.
Sir F. HALLIs my right hon. Friend aware that I have gone carefully into the whole case, and have been in communication with his Department in regard to it for the last four or five months; and is he also aware that the medical tribunal made a mistake in 1923, and recognised that they had made a mistake? Considering that this man is losing his eyesight in consequence of the mosquito bites that he received at Langemarch, surely something ought to be done to look after him?
Lieut.-Colonel STANLEYI have looked at the correspondence, and my hon. and gallant Friend has communicated with the Ministry very frequently on this matter. As a matter of fact, he is mistaken in regard to one point. The Appeal Tribunal have not recognised that they made a mistake, and have never said anything of the sort. They said deliberately that this disability was not due to the War, and they have never corrected that statement.
Sir F. HALLAm I to understand that the statement made in this question, that the medical board in November, 1922, stated that Mr. Pogose's disability had passed away, that in consequence his pension and allowances ceased, and that it was afterwards found that a mistake had been made, is wrong? Is this question right or is it wrong? If it is right, surely something ought to be done for this poor man?
Lieut.-Colonel STANLEYMy hon. and gallant Friend is entirely wrong. As I have tried to point out in my answer, the Appeal Tribunal decided that the aggravation of the heart trouble and the arteriosclerosis persisted, but, at the same time, that the defective eyesight was not attributable to the War.