HC Deb 05 July 1932 vol 268 cc220-1
14. Mr. RHYS DAVIES

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Mr. James Martin, late No. 2724, private, Lancashire Fusiliers, of 43, Baker Street, Elton, Bury, Lancashire, was 65 years of age on 9th May, 1932; that a copy of his birth certificate has been shown to the authorities of the Chelsea Royal Hospital; that he has been refused a pension due to him at 65 years of age because the records at the hospital do not coincide with his birth certificate; and will he state why the man's incorrect Army record takes precedence over his correct record in this connection?

Mr. WOMERSLEY

The age given by a recruit on first attestation is accepted as his correct age throughout his career for various purposes, including the assessment of pension, and no exception can be made in this case.

Mr. DAVIES

If it can be proved that the wrong age was due to the fault of the officer recruiting at the time, will it alter the attitude of the War Office towards a claim for pension; and will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question as to the power of the War Office to over-ride the birth certificate in this connection?

Mr. WOMERSLEY

My answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that, if my hon. Friend has any information to the effect he has stated and will convey it to my hon. Friend, he will no doubt look into the matter. As regards the latter part, I can only repeat the statement that no exception can be made in this case.

Mr. HANNON

On a point of Order. Would it not be better that a question of this character should be referred to the Department concerned rather than waste the time of the House?

Mr. DAVIES

May I inform the hon. Gentleman that the whole business has been dealt with by correspondence with the War Office, and that I have completely failed to achieve my purpose.

Mr. SPEAKER

There is really no point of Order.

Mr. HANNON

May I respectfully submit that you and your predecessor at various times in this House have held that questions affecting small personal matters of this character should not be put down upon the Order Paper and waste the time of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER

I am afraid that I cannot undertake the duty suggested.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

Is it not the case that, when satisfaction is not obtained even in personal cases, a Member has the right to bring the matter to the House of Commons to try and get it adjusted?