HC Deb 04 March 1931 vol 249 cc374-6
24. Sir BERTRAM FALLE

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that an inquest on an ex-dockyard- man who received injuries whilst at work in His Majesty's Dockyard at Portsmouth and who died in the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, was carried out by a naval surgeon-commander who gave evidence at the inquest; that compensation has been claimed by the widow and refused: and whether, in view of the Admiralty being an interested party, he will issue instructions that in future cases of this nature the inquest shall be conducted by an independent civilian doctor or that the next-of-kin may be informed so that they may be medically represented at the inquest?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon)

The ex-dockyardman to whom the question of the hon. Member doubtless refers, was formerly an established driller, His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, invalided from His Majesty's Service on the 19th September, 1928. On the 16th June, 1930, he was admitted into Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, for diagnosis in connection with injuries sustained on duty in 1926 and 1928, and for which he had been awarded compensation. He died in the hospital on 7th July, 1930, and by order of the coroner, an autopsy was carried out in the hospital. The appointment of a doctor to conduct a postmortem examination preliminary to an inquest, and arrangements for the family to be represented are both matters entirely for the coroner, and I have no power to intervene. A claim to compensation was submitted to the Treasury—the statutory authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act—who decided that the medical evidence did not admit of any doubt that the diseases from which the man was suffering were unconnected with the injuries which he sustained on duty. They were, therefore, unable to award compensation to the dependants.

Sir B. FALLE

Although the hon. Gentleman cannot force it, cannot he make a suggestion that this rule should be followed out?

Mr. AMMON

If the hon. Member has any further evidence which he can bring to us, I shall be glad to go into it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

Does not this case show the injustice under which the dependants of dockyard men suffer in asking for compensation?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

Have you ruled my question out of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER

I said that it was a matter of opinion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

It arises directly out of the question.

Mr. SPEAKER

Sir Bertram Falle.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

May I submit that the question which I am putting arises directly out of the answer?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member asked whether something did not show; that is entirely a matter of opinion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

As you have not heard my question, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is difficult for you to decide.

Mr. SPEAKER

Sir Bertram Falle.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I want to make a submission to you, Mr. Speaker, that this case shows the injustice under which the dependants of dockyard men suffer, and I want to have that position remedied.

Mr. SPEAKER

I must repeat that that is a pure matter of opinion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

Mr. Speaker—

Mr. SPEAKER

Sir Bertram Falle.