HC Deb 22 July 1955 vol 544 cc788-92

May I now turn to my Adjournment subject? Mr. Wilkes is a resident of Dudley and served in the Army from 1944 to 1947. He is now in poor health. Under the advice of his doctor he made a claim for pension which was put forward in the ordinary way. The Minister of Pensions, in his wisdom, turned the claim down. In doing so he advised Mr. Wilkes that he could go to appeal.

Mr. Wilkes put the facts of the case before an appeal tribunal, and, normally, I would not have dissented from that course, except that a letter was sent to me by the Parliamentary Secretary on 28th June putting a proposition which did not meet with my satisfaction. He stated that Mr. Wilkes, prior to joining the Army, had suffered from a disability arising from rheumatic fever, that the medical board knew that Mr. Wilkes had heart trouble and that fact was recorded.

After his four years in the Army Mr. Wilkes returned to civilian life. The Ministry of Pensions base its case on the fact that there was this heart trouble before he went in, and that when he came out of the Army Mr. Wilkes made no complaint. The Parliamentary Secretary includes this sentence in his letter: At his release medical examination, no heart trouble was detected. If that letter had been sent by the Minister I would not have worried very much because the Minister has not been a Regular soldier. The Parliamentary Secretary has. He knows just what medical examinations in the Army are. I call in evidence at least 5 million men who, at the end of their wartime service, presented themselves for release. The medical examination then took this form, "Are you all right?" "Yes." "That's all right." That is the medical examination, and that is the end of it. To turn down a claim for pension on the results of a so-called examination of that kind, because the disability did not emerge for seven years afterwards, and because nothing was revealed at the time of his release, was very wrong indeed.

I am not in any sort of backdoor fashion advancing the argument, "Fit for service, fit for pension." Mr. Wilkes went into the Army with the knowledge of the medical tribunal that he suffered from heart trouble. If anybody tells me, after four years as a private soldier, with quite a lot of "square bashing," that that is the kind of treatment that a doctor would recommend for heart trouble I say that it cannot be so.

I took Mr. Wilkes' case to a doctor in the House and to a doctor outside the House and they both agreed that the complaint from which this man was suffering must have been aggravated by his war service.

The Minister, who has the benefit of the advice given by his medical officers, admits that Mr. Wilkes had heart trouble when he went in, but says there was nothing wrong with him when he came out. The Minister does not and cannot possibly know that it is not for a Regular officer to turn down a claim for pension on the basis of an examination which he knows as well as I do never took place.

I hope that the Minister will submit these papers of the medical board and the findings of the medical adviser to independent medical advisers. The Minister has power, under the Royal Warrant, to choose two doctors of high standing. If those medical authorities say that the man's condition was not aggravated by war service, I will accept it.

2.49 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Brigadier J. G. Smyth)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of one or two points he was going to raise, and for the very great attention that he always pays to his war pension cases. Our object in the old Ministry and in the present Ministry of Pensions has always been to do the best we possibly can, within the Regulations, for our war-disabled men. We stretch the Regulations as far as we can.

I assure the hon. Gentleman at once that if he has any medical evidence—he has spoken of one or two medical authorities that he has consulted and which I know nothing about—

Mr. Wigg

A letter from the man's doctor was sent to the Minister.

Brigadier Smyth

I thought the hon. Gentleman said that he put the case to several other doctors. If he can produce further medical evidence from other doctors we should certainly be very ready to consider it, and perhaps he would send it to me. I do not say that my right hon. Friend would alter the opinion which he has reached on this case but we are certainly very ready to consider extra evidence in this case, as we always are.

We very seldom get a case of war pension entitlement raised on the Adjournment in which there is an appeal to the statutory tribunal; and of course this is one of those cases in which there is the right of appeal. I should like to give briefly the history of the case, on which my right hon. Friend reached his decision that he could not admit the claim. Some of it is repetitive, but I will be brief.

Mr. Wilkes enlisted in April, 1944, at the age of 18. At the medical board, on enlistment, it was recorded that he had had heart trouble—a rheumatic heart—in his extreme youth, at the age of about six. He gave that statement in writing the day before his medical board on enlistment. The medical board, in April, 1944, found no abnormality of the heart but, on the history which he had given, or presumably on that history, the board placed him in Grade II, category B1, and Mr. Wilkes served in the United Kingdom in the Pioneer Corps as a mess orderly and on general light duties throughout his service.

The only history which we have of him during his service is that he had a bruised foot in 1945, in 1946 he received treatment for acne, and in July, 1947, on a routine inspection, when he was being considered for employment, the medical board noted that he had a slight mitral murmur—murmur of the heart. In October, 1947, when he had his final medical examination before release, the only disability which could be found was acne, and he was regarded as fit for further service in category B1.

When he enlisted in 1944, when he was 18, his height was 5 ft. 5 in. and his weight was 105 lb. When he left the Service three-and-a-half years later, in October, 1947, his height was 5 ft. 7 in. and his weight was 140 lb. He had gained 2 in. and added 35 lb. during his three-and-a-half years' service. It did not look as though his service, which was performed in a lowered category, had done him any harm.

In the Ministry we heard nothing of him until April, 1955, eight years later. The hon. Member then sent us a letter from Mr. Wilkes' doctor, who had just examined him. The letter read: This man came to consult me about a month ago as a result of haemoptysis"— that is, spitting blood— I referred him for X-ray examination which proved that he had a mitral stenosis"— that is, rheumatic heart— which was the cause of his haemoptysis. I presume he must have had this previous to his entering the Services, and am of the opinion his condition would be aggravated by his Army service. I therefore advised him to try for a pension, as the presence of this condition will limit his future, and he will be placed on the disablement list. That is the sort of letter which any doctor might write to assist his patient. It is not a very definite letter. The doctor said that he advised Mr. Wilkes to have a try for a pension—and I think he was quite right to do so.

We then made further inquiries about him and found that he had been incapacitated for nearly a month in May, 1950, three years after he left the Service, on account of pleurisy, hypertension and bronchitis. There was no mention at that time of mitral stenosis. For two weeks in March, 1955, he was incapacitated by a slight injury to his back.

We boarded him in May, 1955, and found moderate disablement from mitral stenosis and no disablement from acne. Mr. Wilkes told the board that he had been employed since he left the Service as a builder's labourer until a year before and then as a driver's mate, and that he had lost approximately six weeks a year on account of chest pains, although apparently he had no doctor's certificate to that effect.

After consideration by our senior medical officers of every bit of evidence we could get Mr. Wilkes was notified on 30th June of the rejection of his claim on the ground that his disabilities were neither attributable to, nor aggravated by, his service, and he was told of his right of appeal to the appeal tribunal. Under the Royal Warrant a pension can only be granted to Mr. Wilkes if it is certified by the doctors of the Ministry, or a medical board, or any other doctor the Minister appoints, that the conditions are either attributable to, or aggravated by, his service.

His case has been considered by three of our most experienced doctors at the Ministry and they have gone into it most thoroughly. All of them are agreed that the mitral stenosis was due to the rheumatic infection which occurred in his early life. They are also agreed that there was nothing to support the suggestion that service at home in that lowered category in any way aggravated the condition, which remained latent and did not manifest itself until a long time after his service had ended.

We should note, first, that he first claimed sickness benefit in 1950. As I have mentioned, it was not for mitral stenosis, it was for pleurisy, hypertension and bronchitis. He made no claim to pension until 1955—between seven and eight years after his service had ended. From 1947 to 1955 he appears to have carried on his job as a builder's labourer—that is a rather heavy job—and, later, as a driver's mate.

Under the Royal Warrant, in a case like this the Minister must go on the advice of his medical advisers, and they are all agreed. There is no strong difference of opinion. The doctor's opinion which the hon. Member sent us when he saw the case in April this year certainly did not disclose any strong difference of opinion from that formed by our medical officers. In fact it could hardly have been milder. All it does is to say to the pensioner, very rightly, "Have a shot at it. It may be that your present condition was aggravated by service." I think it was absolutely right to make that suggestion, but the Minister does not feel that on the evidence there is any great conflict of medical opinion on this case.

Mr. Wilkes has a right of appeal to the independent tribunal and he was informed of that right on 30th June last. Every assistance will be given to him by the Ministry or the British Legion if he decides to proceed with an appeal. As I have said to the hon. Member, we shall gladly consider any extra evidence he cares to send, although I repeat that I cannot commit my right hon. Friend definitely to saying that as a result he will alter his opinion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.