§ 5. Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour which medical boards are responsible for having approved the call up of John Campfield, 163, Crayford Way, Crayford, Kent, and Kenneth Davis, 31, Cedar Road, Slade Green, Kent, for Army service; and what are the names and ages of the members of each board.
§ Sir W. MoncktonJohn Campfield was examined by Lewisham No. 1 Medical Board and Kenneth Davis by Lewisham No. 2 Medical Board. Each of these boards is composed of five members drawn from panels of 11 and 13 practitioners respectively. I am not prepared to disclose the personal particulars requested of the members who examined the two men in question.
§ Mr. DoddsDid the right hon. and learned Gentleman see in the medical Press a fortnight ago an opinion that the ages of many people on the boards are too high, so that they are not able to do their job as well as they might?
§ Sir W. MoncktonI have not seen that, but the question of the age of members of the board is one we have constantly under review. As I said last week, they are not appointed after the age of 65, 565 but many doctors of 70 and over do the job extremely well. Moreover, it is very hard to get people in regular practice to do this job.
§ 9. Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour what medical grade was given by his appropriate medical board in the case of Kenneth Davis, 31, Cedar Road, Slade Green, prior to his being allocated to the Army.
§ Sir W. MoncktonGrade I.
§ Mr. DoddsDoes the Minister really think that a man who has a history of rheumatic fever, and who went in with such a degree of flat feet that the War Office sent him out unfit for military service, was a satisfactory man to be placed in Grade I?
§ Sir W. MoncktonIt is difficult to go through the exact details of every case, but I have looked at this one. I found, as to the rheumatic fever, that he had it when he was a boy aged 9 or 10, in 1944. He was referred by the board to a consultant cardiologist in case there had been some effect on the heart. The consultant said that the heart was quite normal. So far as flat feet are concerned, the man said nothing about that when he was examined and it was not until he was in the Army that it was eventually discovered. That was not the cause of his discharge. He was discharged because of the infection of osteo-arthritis.
§ Mr. DoddsI wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible, as it is difficult to deal with it by Question and answer.
§ 12. Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now investigated the position relating to the calling up of Kenneth Wright, Leicester; and if he will make a statement thereon.
§ Sir W. MoncktonYes, Sir. At his first National Service medical examination in October, 1952, this man informed the board that he had never suffered from tuberculosis and a mass miniature radiography examination of his chest revealed nothing abnormal. About a month later, he volunteered for the Royal Air Force, but was not accepted because an X-ray photograph of his chest showed shadows which were interpreted as indicating inactive tuberculosis.
566 The National Service medical board has twice since consulted the Leicester Chest Clinic about him and, before placing him in Medical Grade I in June, 1953, had ascertained from the clinic that there was no evidence of active tuberculosis and that if, on re-examination in nine months' time, his condition remained unchanged, he would be discharged from the clinic. As far as I can ascertain, there is no evidence of how long ago this man had tuberculosis. This is, however, a borderline case and I have decided to cancel his enlistment notice and he will not be called up for service.
§ Mr. JannerWhile thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the reply which he has given in respect of the cancellation, may I ask him whether he will take care, when a man comes forward in future to see that if he states that he has been under doctor's treatment, as this man did, and say that he has been discharged, the inquiry form to which the Minister referred in his reply to me a few days ago will be sent to his doctor, because it was not sent in this case? Will the Minister also inquire into another case of a similar nature which occurred in Leicester a few days ago?
§ Sir W. MoncktonIf the hon. Member will give me particulars of the case, I certainly will. I think that I have dealt with the first part of his supplementary question.
§ 15. Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Labour if he will now make a further statement on the medical grading and enlistment of Mr. Peter Frostick, Maldon. Essex.
§ Sir W. MoncktonYes, Sir. Arrangements are in hand for Mr. Frostick's medical re-examination and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the report is available. Meantime, no action is being taken to call Mr. Frostick for service.
§ Mr. DribergWhile I accept the apology and explanation for the recent error in the previous answer sent to me privately by the Parliamentary Secretary, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that it is very disturbing that a mistake of that kind can occur in this kind of case in view of all the other recent individual cases of error there have been?
§ Sir W. MoncktonI hope I have shown the House and the hon. Member that I am alive to this and am doing my best to correct it.