DISABLED EX-SERVICE MAN (MOTOR CAR) (Hansard, 17 February 1955)

§ Sir David Robertson (Caithness and Sutherland)
I desire to discuss a different kind of military matter from those which we have been discussing today and on previous days. This is about a fighting soldier, John Kennedy McLeod, who is a constituent of mine and a crofter in Strathnaver. He volunteered for service in the First World War with the 5th Sea-forth Highlanders, Caithness and Sutherland Regiment, and on the first day of the Battle of Arras, on 9th April, 1917, he sustained multiple wounds.
After months in hospital, he was discharged with a 100 per cent. disablement pension, minus his right leg, his right arm, with his left shoulder joint destroyed, and with an entire bullet still in the root of his neck close to the spine. He was then 22 years of age. He is now 60 and his general health has deteriorated. Osteoarthritis of the spine has occurred. He has become totally blind in one eye. He is unable to use crutches because the right arm is amputated an inch or two below the shoulder, so that there is no shoulder there to hold a crutch, and the other shoulder, of course, is destroyed owing to an immovable joint and other injuries. 747 He is able to hobble about on one stick for very short distances.
Before the disabled car scheme came into being, he was granted a motor-tricycle. When he was learning to drive it, in order to undergo his driving test, the machine got out of control and he was thrown out on to the kerb and sustained very bad injuries. He attributes the loss of his eye to that accident, but the Ministry of Pensions takes a contrary view. It attributes the eye trouble to glaucoma.
When the car scheme for the disabled came out in 1948 he immediately applied, and I think I had better read his letter because it sets out exactly what occurred: Being unable to use the tricycle any more, I applied for one of the motor cars supplied to 100 per cent. disabled limbless soldiers, when these were first issued. The Ministry of Pensions made an excuse then that the cars were in very short supply. This I accepted at the time. I have repeated my application several times since then and I have been turned down every time. Their excuse was that the cars were supplied only to men with amputations one below and one above the knee or with paraplegia. Here are letters which he received from the Department at St. Andrew's House. The first is dated 3rd August, 1954, and I must quote from it because it is a very important letter. It sets out the basis, which runs right through this case, of the reasons for which this man is unable to get one of these cars, which I maintain were designed for men like him.
With reference to your application for the supply of a motor car, I wish to explain that the number of cars available is strictly limited and a car can only be supplied to war pensioners accepted as being within one of the following categories of disablement: (a) double leg amputation with one or both above the knee; (b) paraplegia causing total or almost total loss of the use of both legs; (c) —and this is the material category, I believe, to this case— other severe disablements directly affecting the legs to such an extent as to cause total or almost total loss of the use of the legs. As you do not come within any of these categories, I am very sorry to have to tell you that we are unable to supply you with a motor car. It is signed by "R. Ewing."
Here is another letter, of 14th September, 1954, written in reply to a letter which my constituent addressed to St. Andrew's House on 1st September: 748 While it is agreed that your disabilities are severe, we can consider only those disabilities which have been accepted by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance as a direct result of your war service. In view of this I am directed to inform you that you do not qualify in any of the three categories for a motor car. At that stage, John Kennedy McLeod, my constituent, referred the case to me. I took it up immediately with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland, and he immediately agreed that the case required further consideration. He set about having that carried out, but I was very disappointed to receive a letter from him dated 21st December wherein he said: In view of Mr. McLeod's serious disabilities, I have given his application most serious consideration. He has been medically examined again at my request. I am informed that while he naturally cannot walk a long distance, he still has full movement of the hip and knee of both legs, and the artificial limbon his right leg fits satisfactorily. Examinations by different doctors over several years do not suggest that his condition is getting worse. There is no evidence that his eye condition, chronic glaucoma, was due to either war service or to the accident which he had with the tricycle given to him on trial, and he was so informed by the Ministry of Pensions in 1950. While I have the greatest sympathy for Mr. McLeod, I feel that I must continue to keep the very few cars that are available for ex-Service men who have lost both legs (one or both above the knee) or otherwise have a total, or almost total, loss of the use of both legs. I am sorry that I cannot give you a more helpful reply. I will come back to that letter in a moment or two. I was, of course, dissatisfied with that reply and I asked my Friend, Mr. Ian MacPherson, who is one of Scotland's greatest surgeons and is consultant at the Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow, to have Mr. McLeod examined. I felt that I had to bring in an independent man of the highest standing, and Mr. MacPherson kindly took Mr. McLeod to the Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow, and made a thorough examination of him. I will read a summary of his report: This man is in excellent spirit despite his gross disability. He has lost the right leg and the right arm, for which suitable artificial limbs have been supplied and which are quite satisfactory. He has lost all movement at the left shoulder joint. A bullet is still present at the base of his neck and arthritic changes in the spine are so well marked that there is wedging of the bodies of the vertebrae as shown by X-ray in the mid dorsal region. In addition he is completely blind in the left eye and the right eye shows limited visual acuity. 749 He goes about with the aid of a stick which is not of much help in view of the fixation of the left shoulder joint. Progress in walking is slow and laborious and the distance he can cover is very limited. One must recognise that, as the years pass, any muscular weakness will increase and the disability become a little more exaggerated on account of the usual strains and stresses causing degenerative changes. He is unable to use crutches on account of the loss of the right arm and the fixation at the left shoulder joint. His covering letter says: Enclosed is my report on John Kennedy McLeod together with your letters to me. I cannot understand anyone more deserving of the need of a car; as Gladstone quoted 'What is morally wrong cannot be politically right.' This case will require to be considered under clause three."
Clause 3 is the one that gives some latitude.
I looked at the beginning of the scheme, because I find that the categories have been accorded a sanctity which I do not think they deserve. The civil servants who conducted the correspondence glorified in categories, but there is no force of law behind the categories. They are simply a scheme designed by the then Minister of Pensions, and he referred to them in July, 1948, in the; following terms: I am glad to say that a scheme has been worked out in agreement with my Central Advisory Committee under which a limited number of small cars, not exceeding 1,500, will be made available over the next two years for supplying, free of charge, to certain classes of very seriously disabled war pensioners who may elect to receive a car in place of the motor propelled tricycle to which they are entitled under existing regulations. These classes consist of double leg amputees, of which at least one amputation is above the knee, paraplegics, and pensioners suffering from other disabilities resulting in the total, or almost total, loss of use of both legs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July 1948; Vol 454, c. 1603.] That is what has happened to this man, and right through the years he has failed to get a car. I take the view, as I think most people would, that it is wholly wrong that he should continue to be deprived of it.
This story of the shortage of cars is not true at all. Since 1948, when the disabled car scheme started, Britain has produced 3,557,000 cars The number of cars issued under the scheme reached 1,945 in 1953, and although the number is now lower, what a very small percentage of cars go to men who are in the greatest need of them. I uphold economy 750 in the public service—I want much more of it than is practised now—but not at the expense of those in greatest need. This man is one of those in the greatest need.
Life must have been very grim for him since April, 1917. He was engaged to be married when he went into the Army. The marriage did not take place. It needs no imagination to know why. And now here he is, in the evening of his days, wanting the kind of car that has been supplied to 1,900 people. There is no shortage. People can buy Morris Minors and Ford Eights, the cars used for this scheme, at any showroom. The Government do not find a shortage when getting mail vans and other cars, but, owing to an alleged shortage, a car is denied to this man. Nobody can be in greater need. I am disappointed that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary seem to support officialdom. I have the greatest regard for our civil servants, but it is notable in this case that Mr. McLeod has one foot too many. But he also has one bullet in the neck too many, and two smashed shoulders, and one eye missing. But he "does not fall within the category." "Category" is never referred to in an Act of Parliament, or in any regulation of this House.
The record since this car scheme went to St. Andrew's House is not a good one. A few days ago, in answer to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod), who asked how many disabled men in Scotland were waiting for cars and how many had been refused because of the absence of the necessary disablement qualifications, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said: Out of 25 applications received since 31 Aug., 1953, when my right hon. Friend became responsible for the service in Scotland, 12 have had to be refused for the reason stated. Cars have been supplied to 11 applicants, and the other two are waiting for cars that have been authorised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st Feb., 1955; Vol. 536, col. 893.] Two years—eleven cars! Value £400 apiece, total £4,400. But Parliament has authorised the Secretary of State to spend £93,000 for the year 1953–54 for these cars, and also for the tricycles and invalid chairs, and £84,000 for 1954–55. It seems that the money which Parliament has voted is not being used. It must be 751 wrong that this man should be denied something which I am certain every hon. Member of this House would want him to have; which the people who elected us to this House would want him to have. Those people would take a very poor view of those who have refused it. This man happens to be a constituent of mine and, for that reason, his case has come to me. I wonder how many more of them there are?

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart)
This is the kind of case which, I imagine, must have come to the notice of all of us in the course of our Parliamentary careers. This is the case of a soldier suffering severe disability from the First World War and who, now getting old, feels the effect of that misfortune. We all want to do what is right and proper by a case of this kind, and it is very proper that my hon. Friend, having had the case brought to his notice, should seek some easement of this man's troubles.
The difficulty is, as we have explained to my hon. Friend by letter and in talks, that border lines have to be drawn. That is the only way in which administration can be carried on and, while it is quite true that the conditions which he has quoted are not embodied in the laws of the land, they are administrative arrangements made by previous Governments and found to be workable and, therefore, maintained by the present Government.
My hon. Friend has set out those three conditions, and therefore I do not need to repeat them." Translated into the language of ordinary men, they mean broadly this. That if an ex-Service man suffering from a war disability is not able to move about because of injuries to his legs, if he is not able to get out of his house at all, then he is entitled to a car, provided he can get somebody to drive it for him. But if he is able to get about on his legs, we have to draw the line and say that a car is not available for such a man.
This man is clearly a case of very heavy disability—there is no argument about that; but he is able to move around, as my hon. Friend has said, with a stick. I gather that he lives the greater 752 part of his life with a relative in Edinburgh and sometimes possibly in the summer months, he goes up to his croft in the North.

§ Sir D. Robertson
For six months.

§ Mr. Stewart
As my hon. Friend knows, this case has been examined over and over again by, not one specialist, but different specialists. Since he applied, the man has been examined five times, and three of these have been special examinations. In each case, the medical specialist has reluctantly had to come to the conclusion that he does not fall within this broad distinction of being unable to get about on his legs.

§ Sir D. Robertson
That just will not do. This man is in Edinburgh for six months in the year, mainly getting attention at hospital there for his eye and his limbs. A car is sent for him, and he is taken back in a car; the hospital people do not expect him to walk. The only walking he does is hobbling about, as far as the distance between the two sides of this House. That is the extent of it. How can it be otherwise? He has not got shoulders, he has only one hand that can lightly hold a stick, and he has only one leg. It is nonsensical to take that view. My hon. Friend is good enough to suggest that because five specialists have taken that view, what Mr. Ian Macpherson says is wrong.

§ Mr. Stewart
That is where my hon. Friend's case is weak. What the specialist whom my hon. Friend engaged said was precisely what all the other specialists said. His examination produced a report exactly the same as that of everybody else. There is no dispute about the medical facts.
What, then, can we do for this poor man? This is what I can tell my hon. Friend. I accept my hon. Friend's contention that the man's present limited mobility may possibly be further curtailed if his war service disabilities were to become worse. As my hon. Friend knows, any possibility of deterioration is kept under careful review by regular medical examinations, and, of course, Mr. McLeod can apply for a special examination at any time if he thinks any change has come about, and I assure my hon. Friend that no difficulty whatever will be raised in granting him that examination.
753 It is left to the limb surgeon in Edinburgh to decide whether to bring him into the limb fitting centre or to examine him in his own home. In fact the examination which my right hon. and gallant Friend arranged in November of last year was undertaken in the man's own home. Every facility is offered to this man to have these examinations.
At some future date these war disabilities may reach a stage at which Mr. McLeod will qualify for a car. One can quite easily foresee that with age coming on and one thing and another his ability even to cover the 50 yards, which I am told he can now walk, might be curtailed. If his war disabilities reached that stage, he would undoubtedly qualify for a car under "Category 3" Provided that the problems of garaging and of obtaining the services of a driver could be solved, there 754 would then be no delay at all in seeing that a car was provided for him.
Administering this great scheme, as we try to do, honestly and fairly between one man and another, I regret that it is not possible to bring this ex-Service man immediately into the category that would entitle him to a car, but I assure my hon. Friend and the House that this man is receiving the most careful attention. Every facility will be offered to him for further examination, and should there be any real sign of deterioration through war disability he will be immediately provided with a car.