§ 7. Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case of Mr. Arthur Lionel Symes, late private, No. 15,751, of the Royal West Kent Regiment, who was accepted as A 1 on the 11th December, 1915, and transferred to the Army Reserve on the 10th March, 1919, since when he has been suffering from chronic bronchitis and experienced difficulty in breathing which has been certified by two private doctors as due to war service, and yet has been consistently refused any pension although he is to a large extent disqualified from carrying on his normal employment?
§ Major TRYONI find that Mr. Symes made a claim for bronchitis in 1922, but that his claim could not be accepted by the Ministry as connected with his war service, and their decision was confirmed on appeal by the independent Appeal Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal is final.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALADoes the Minister maintain that all competent medical authorities and persons in this country are not capable of giving an opinion on the source of a disease; and if there is reliable independent medical opinion expressly saying that a person's suffering arises as a result of the War, is it not possible for the Minister to revise his scheme of referring these matters only to the final tribunal?
§ Major TRYONThe scheme decided upon by Parliament and desired by the ex-service men is that in such cases of doubt the matter shall not be decided by the Ministry of Pensions but by the tribunal, who have already dealt with this case.
§ Mr. MACLEANDoes the Minister wish to make out to this House that the only competent medical officers in the country are those employed by this tribunal?
§ Major TRYONThe point which I was making in reply to the previous question was that the House has decided that the final decision in that matter rests with the tribunal.
§ Mr. STEPHENIn view of the fact that, according to the Minister's own statement, there have been some 5,000 193 cases where the tribunal's decisions have been afterwards accepted as wrong, is there not ground for some other court or some other medical referee?
§ Major TRYONThe hon. Member is mixing up two different things. The answer which I gave previously was in reference to alterations in the amount of assessment. In this case the question is one of entitlement and it has been decided.
§ Mr. STEPHENWere not these assessment cases also decided by the tribunal?
§ Major TRYONThe point of this question is not the amount. The point here is whether to make the award or not and the tribunal has decided it.
§ Mr. STEPHENIf the tribunal could be wrong as to the amount, may it not also be wrong as to the fact?