HC Deb 05 September 1939 vol 351 cc437-8
1. Captain Ramsay

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that No. 40845 Private William Gardiner, of the Royal Scots, severely wounded while serving with the Highland Light Infantry in France in June, 1917, received a final award in November, 1919, on the decision that the shrapnel wound in his leg was likely to give no further trouble; that this decision was reaffirmed at various subsequent examinations till, in January, 1937, he had to undergo an operation, in the course of which shrapnel was removed from the bone in one leg; that he had another operation in September, 1937, and 17 weeks hospital treatment in 1938; that since then his condition has steadily deteriorated, and that nevertheless no award has so far been proposed to supplement that based on a decision subsequently shown to have been in-accurate; and will he have this case re-examined?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley)

As I have already explained to my hon. and gallant Friend after a further very recent review of the case, the last period of treatment definitely established that Mr. Gardiner's crippled condition is due to osteo-arthritis. My medical advisers cannot relate that condition to the very small foreign body which was removed from his leg in 1937, or otherwise to war service. A recent examination showed that the wound in the leg is not of itself giving rise to any appreciable disablement.

Captain Ramsay

In view of the fact that the original award, which I under- stand was under £50, was on the understanding that there would be no further trouble from shrapnel, and that in fact an operation to the man had to take place, would my hon. Friend see whether the case could not be considered by some other court to see if something could be done?

Sir W. Womersley

I am just as anxious as my hon. and gallant Friend that justice should be done, and I shall be very much obliged if he will see me after Questions and we will go through the case together in my room.

Mr. Poole

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether in this, as in other similar cases—and there are a multitude of them —where there is an element of doubt, the-benefit of that doubt should be given to the applicant rather than to the Ministry?

Sir W. Womersley

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the benefit of the doubt is given to the applicant. This is not a question of doubt at all as far as my medical officers are concerned. Probably the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the fact that I have no power to award any pension unless I have a certificate from the medical men of the Ministry to the effect that the disability is due to war service, and this House of Commons approved that.