§ 21. Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will set out the new rules and principles governing the attributability of tuberculosis cases in the Navy?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI am afraid that this is not practicable, as the value of working rules of this kind depends largely on the power to apply the spirit of them to the facts of individual cases as disclosed by the medical evidence. To state them as absolute rules would give them a hard-and-fast character which would impair their value.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAIs it not also important that those making claims under these rules should be acquainted with the rules, so that they may be assured that they are not making claims that have no chance of being put into effect?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI do not think that that point really arises. It is perfectly clear that all claims will be 405 made, and they will be considered, in the light of the new rules, which, as I have stated in previous answers, are much more favourable than the old ones.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHACan we know what the rules are?
§ 23. Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the Board of Admiralty has decided to revise the rules and principles relating to the assessment of attributability of tuberculosis cases at and from 1st October last, the Board can see its way to make the revision retrospective, in order that those who are now left without pensions but who nevertheless, had they been subsequently invalided, would have come within the new rules, may benefit by them?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe new rules are in effect a concession, and it has been necessary to fix a date for their introduction. The 1st October last has been taken for this purpose, after full consideration, and it is not proposed to depart from it.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAIs the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the whole purpose of revising the rules was that the Admiralty realised that in some cases full justice was not done to the men; and that being so, would it not be within the spirit of the Admiralty's intention to admit people who have been excluded under the old rules?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe hon. Member will appreciate the fact that we cannot go back beyond a certain date for various reasons, but we can always do so for medical reasons, and any case can always be considered when it comes up.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDWill the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure us that under the new rules men who are discharged from the Royal Navy on account of tuberculosis will not be treated more harshly than men discharged from the other two Services?
§ Sir B. FALLEWhen the joint committee of the three Services has reported, will not the rules then be again revised?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThat remains to be seen.
Dr. VERNON DAVIESWould a certificate from a medical man, which pointed out that a discharged sailor was suffering from tuberculosis attributable to the conditions of service, and which had been rejected by the Admiralty, he considered now?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMAny new medical evidence that is brought forward will always justify reconsideration of a case.
§ Rear-Admiral BEAMISHIs there any prospect of these new rules and principles being published?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMMy hon. and gallant Friend did not, perhaps, hear my previous answer, in which I indicated that that is not our intention.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDMay I ask if, in the new rules, the condition for a pension that the disease was contracted owing to special hardship has been deleted, so as to put men of the Royal Navy on a par with those of the other two Services?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe rules certainly do not place the Navy under worse conditions than the other two Services.