WAR DEPARTMENT (ACCIDENT CLAIM) (Hansard, 21 April 1955)

§ Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)
The case to which I desire to call attention tonight is one affecting a Mr. Justin McCarthy, who lives with his wife at Canon Street, Barry, Co. Glamorgan, in the Parliamentary Division I have the honour to represent. Mr. and Mrs. McCarthy are decent, thrifty people in quite modest circumstances, whose constant efforts to maintain reasonable living standards have been hampered by the misfortune of the husband.
On or about 3rd March, 1947, my constituent, Mr. McCarthy, was employed at the Supply Reserve Depot of the War Office which is situate just outside the boundaries of the Borough of Barry in the direction of the village of Sully. During his employment there at that time it seems that a heavy vehicle which was passing through the premises caused some grit to fly up into his eyes and consequently he had to receive medical attention.
He was seen by Dr. M. V. Roberts of High Street, Barry. I have recently obtained a certificate from the doctor, which I shall be happy to show to my hon. Friend, and which at this stage I should like to read to the House. It is dated 22nd February of this year and states: 480 Re Mr. Justin McCarthy, 21, Canon Street, Barry. Dear Mr. Gower, I attended the above for a very inflamed eye on 3rd March, 1947. He stated that he had had an accident at work. As the eye condition did not improve, I referred him to the Ophthalmic Department of the Royal Infirmary, Cardiff, where he was under the care of Mr. Tudor Thomas. I accepted his statement which was consistent with the condition I found at the time of examination. Signed: M. V. Roberts. I want to stress two things about this case. Firstly, at that time Mr. McCarthy had no reason to anticipate that within a few years he would be virtually blind in one eye and partially blind in the other. As far as he could have been aware at that time, he was suffering merely some local pain and discomfort, and he had every reason to hope that this would disappear within a reasonable time. Therefore he had no cause in any way to misrepresent or to exaggerate what had happened.
Secondly, the condition of his eyes was absolutely consistent with his account of what had happened according to the words of the doctor who saw him so soon after he had sustained the accident. I do not believe that a reputable doctor would lightly express such an opinion, or, indeed, put it in writing in a letter to me, unless he was absolutely sure of the fact.
Mr. McCarthy was then in hospital for several weeks, and since then his eyesight has steadily deteriorated. I am assured that he has practically lost the sight of one eye, while the sight of the other is getting worse and worse. I want to be fair to the War Office. My constituent was paid full wages during the time that he was in hospital, and later on he was given light employment at the Supply Reserve Depot, but he tells me that in due course he was obliged to give up even that light employment owing to further deterioration of his eyesight.
On the larger issue, throughout the correspondence which I have had with my hon. Friend and his predecessor at the War Office, the Department has denied liability, and my constituent has received no form of compensation for his injuries. Every consideration has been shown to him by the Cardiff Institute for the Blind, whose officials have been most helpful with advice and in efforts to procure for him some kind of employment consistent with the condition of his eyes. It seems to me that they are prepared to regard 481 him as a blind person within the category of those people after whose interests they look.
Unfortunately, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act did not come into operation until 1948, so that my constituent cannot qualify for any of the benefits under that Measure. I have been in contact with several Departments and bodies which might have been able to render some assistance. I referred the matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and I was informed by the Department that the only benefit for which my constituent could qualify was sickness benefit.
It is my respectful submission to my hon. Friend that in matters of this kind a Service Department, or, indeed, any other Government Department, should act as a model employer. It should seek to set almost ideal standards in consideration of cases falling into such a category as the case which I have raised tonight. I fully understand that the Department has another important duty to the community at large and cannot lightly accept liability for any case referred to it, but I submit that there is substantial evidence that on the date which I have mentioned, while Mr. McCarthy was in the employment of the War Office, or, at least, of one of its subsidiary bodies, he sustained some accident which has materially prejudiced the remaining years of his life. In the view of his own medical practitioner, damage was undoubtedly then done to his eyes which has brought on the terrible affliction from which he now suffers increasingly every day.
I feel that this is a case where, if there is any doubt, as I believe there is, the Department, my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend should be prepared to go into the whole matter again. That is what I ask tonight. I do not ask for any final decision tonight, but I do think that there is a prima facie case which merits further investigation.

§ Dr. H. Morgan (Warrington)
I know this case only from what I have heard tonight in the House. I speak as one who for many years, certainly 30 years, was medical adviser, for example, to the Union of Post Office Workers which kept me in constant touch with the Post Office as an employer. Time and time again 482 when men were about to lose their employment because of a disease or an alleged difficulty we managed, by having the case vetted, either by a medical adviser to the union or some consultant—in London a London specialist, or in Manchester a Manchester specialist, or an appropriate specialist within the vicinity of the man's work or his home—to save many a man's employment.
Apart from that, even if the Government employer would probably have won a case if it had been taken to court, it was found that the Department preferred to act as a good employer and retain the man in his employment so that he did not lose his pension and other advantages which he gained through his employment. Having heard what has been said tonight and having had that experience, I should like to look at this case. However, at my great age of nearly 70 I am no longer employed by this particular union which employed me for nearly 40 years when I won many cases, and I am still winning them. This is a speciality which very few doctors care to take up. They do not like fighting cases with employers to save men's employment, or to give a diagnosis or a prognosis that may be later reversed. The Ministry of Pensions constantly has that difficulty.
Having heard about the case, I should like to take an interest in it, if I may be allowed to do so, and see whether it can be handled in a different way, either by one like myself with experience of handling these cases with the Government, or by passing it to an appropriate specialist. No success could be guaranteed, but we can say from our experience of dealing with many of these cases over a period of nearly 30 years that something might be done. No guarantee can be given. It depends on the medical details of the case, but there might be a legal or medical loophole and some success might be secured in a case of this kind.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean)
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) for raising this matter and also for letting me know the specific points which he intended to mention. I also thank him for the opportunity which he has given me of explaining the position of the War Office in the matter. As 483 he said, we aim at being good employers, and I hope to show that we have taken as sympathetic a view as possible of this case, and that we shall continue to do so.
The chief difficulty has been that seven years elapsed between the time of the alleged accident and the claim put in by Mr. McCarthy through my hon. Friend. After seven years it is very hard to obtain independent confirmation of an accident of this kind. The trouble is that, without confirmation, the War Office cannot accept the claim. The onus of proof must lie with the claimant. I feel bound to say that such evidence as we have got does not appear to substantiate Mr. McCarthy's claim. We have made an extensive examination of such records as there are, and they show no trace of an accident to Mr. McCarthy in 1947.
It is, however, shown that Mr. McCarthy suffered, and also reported, five other minor accidents during the 10 years which he spent in the service of the War Office. That shows that he was aware of the procedure of reporting to the appropriate authority any injury which he received. The fact remains that he did not report any accident in 1947. What we have got a record of is that in March, 1947, Mr. McCarthy was absent from work for one month with acute conjunctivitis. That fact is recorded, not in the injury record where an accident would be recorded, but in the sick record.
During that period Mr. McCarthy does not appear to have drawn injury pay, as he would have done if his state of health had been the result of an accident. Our inquiries have revealed that Mr. McCarthy received a knock in his right eye in 1946 in the course of his duties while he was unloading a truck. Therefore, in June, 1954, after my hon. Friend had brought this matter to the attention of my predecessor, we arranged for a specialist to examine Mr. McCarthy at the expense of the War Office.
This specialist's examination revealed that there was no trace of any disability as a result either of the 1947 accident or indeed of the earlier accident in 1946. It also showed that Mr. McCarthy's sight at that time was normal, with spectacles. In July, 1954, Mr. McCarthy was examined by another specialist who, I understand from my hon. Friend, described him as being virtually blind.
484 Whether there is any conflict between the opinions of those two eminent specialists, I am not competent to say. If there is no conflict, it would appear that during the month from June to July, 1954, there had been a sharp deterioration in Mr. McCarthy's sight. However that may be, the opinion of either specialist does not constitute any proof that the state of Mr. McCarthy's sight was the result of the accident which he alleges took place in 1947.
In February this year my hon. Friend adduced another piece of evidence which has considerably more bearing on the case. He has mentioned it himself. He produced a statement from another doctor, Dr. Roberts, who said that he had seen Mr. McCarthy in March, 1947, and that at that time Mr. McCarthy had said that he had had an accident to his eye, and that the state of his eye was consistent with an accident as described by Mr. McCarthy.
As I have said, that has admittedly a bearing on this case. In fact, it is really the only piece of evidence that we have got which has a bearing on the case. But we still cannot accept what Dr. Roberts has said as independent proof of the accident. What he has said in effect is that the state of Mr. McCarthy's eyesight was consistent with an accident as described, but this is not proof of the accident, nor indeed is it proof that if Mr. McCarthy had suffered an accident as described, that accident was necessarily suffered in the course of his duties.
The present position, therefore, is this. On such evidence as we have at the present time, we are not able, with the best will in the world, to award compensation. On the other hand, we do not regard this case as closed, and if any fresh substantial evidence can be produced which has a bearing on the case to show that Mr. McCarthy did, in 1947, suffer an accident as he describes, and that the injury was attributable to it, or alternatively if the state of Mr. McCarthy's sight can be shown to be attributable to the earlier accident which we know he did suffer in 1946, then we shall be only too glad to re-open this case and consider Mr. McCarthy's claim further.