HC Deb 03 February 1953 vol 510 cc1656-8
52. Sir D. Robertson

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is satisfied with his Department's treatment of the Sutherland ex-soldier he knows of, who was wounded in 1918, his right leg amputated above the knee and discharged from hospital over 30 years ago with an unhealed wound on his left thigh, requiring two surgical dressings a day; who does the dressings; and how many visits were made by his Department's doctors and welfare officials in all the years to 1952.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory)

In 1922 the ex-soldier in question was awarded a pension at the 90 per cent. rate for life. At this time the wounds on his left thigh were reported to be healed. In June, 1952, a member of the local War Pensions Committee reported that the pensioner's condition had considerably deteriorated within the previous three months. He was examined at his home by a medical officer who reported that he was suffering from an ulcer on the left thigh which required daily dressings and could be better treated in hospital. The pensioner was unwilling to attend hospital and preferred to remain under the care of his own doctor who was said to be seeing him regularly. The daily dressings were carried out by his wife acting on instructions from the family doctor. Pension was raised to the 100 per cent. rate with effect from June, 1952. A welfare officer has recently visited the pensioner whose only complaint was that he had not been found eligible for a constant attendance allowance. I am arranging for a special visit by one of my chief medical officers and, when I receive his report. I will write fully to my hon. Friend.

Sir D. Robertson

Since my hon. Friend has not answered the Question on the Paper as to whether he is satisfied with the treatment accorded to this courageous soldier, may I point out that the sole reason why I put down this Question was to ensure that no other soldier suffers as this man has done because nothing can be done for him?

Mr. Amory

I am very sorry for the sad state of this pensioner, but I cannot accept the strictures implied in the Question either on my own behalf or on that of my predecessors. If my hon. Friend will look more closely at this case I think he will see that my Department has done everything it could with the knowledge at its disposal.

Sir D. Robertson

How can my hon. Friend say that when there was failure to graft new skin on to the wound and this man was left for over 30 years without any visits from medical or welfare officers, and it is only due to his devoted wife, who has done the dressings seven days a week for all those years, that he is alive?

Mr. Amory

I remind my hon. Friend that, as my answer mentioned, to the best of the knowledge of my Department this pensioner was healed 30 years ago. My predecessors and I have taken a good deal of trouble to invite any pensioner who has any trouble whatever to get in touch with the Department. Unfortunately, in this case no one contacted the Department. As we have nearly a million pensioners to see to, my hon. Friend will realise that with the best will in the world we cannot make personal visits to them all.

No mention was made that this pensioner was in any difficulty whatever until we heard of it last June, when prompt action was taken. I am looking into the question of the constant attendance allowance and if I find that this pensioner can be made eligible for it, no one will be better pleased than myself.