HC Deb 28 May 1957 vol 571 cc197-9
21 and 23. Mr. Teeling

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) why on 21st May, he wrote to inform the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, that Craftsman Ford's big toe would come out of plaster on 7th May, two weeks previously and stating that he would then be completely overhauled medically, whereas this had already happened on 15th May;

(2) why he informed the secretary of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, on 16th May that a letter concerning Craftsman Ford was in the post, which letter was shown by its contents to have been written before 7th May; why it was dated 21st May; and what steps he is taking to make sure that Members' complaints about their constituents' health and treatment in the Army are urgently treated.

Mr. J. Amery

I very much regret the delay in writing to my hon. Friend after receipt of the first medical report.

I understand that the telephone message given on 16th May was that a letter had been drafted but was not in the post. Inquiries from hon. Members are given high priority in the War Office, and the delay in this instance is exceptional.

Mr. Teeing

Does my hon. Friend realise that this letter, dated 21st May, refers to what will happen when the toe comes out of plaster on 7th May, a fortnight before; and that furthermore this man would then be examined by the War Office and that I would be informed of the result? In the meantime, as my hon. Friend is aware, the father learned all about this. The son was taken ill on the train with acute appendicitis immediately after the medical examination. If this man, having got appendicitis, had been properly examined, and if his tummy had been touched, surely he would have jumped a mile. I gather that Dr. Roger Bannister was one of the doctors who examined this man's foot. Did he examine the rest of his body as well?

Mr. Amery

I think that the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question anticipates the next Question. I can only say that I have already expressed regret for the delay, and I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that expression of regret.

22. Mr. Teeing

asked the Secretary of State for War why, when Craftsman Ford was completely overhauled medically on 15th May and ordered back to Chester hospital for three months for toe trouble, it was not discovered that he had acute appendicitis, since he had to be taken to Liverpool Hospital that same night for operation; and why, in his letter of 21st May, he did not refer to this operation.

Mr. J. Amery

Craftsman Ford did not complain of abdominal trouble and there was no evidence of acute appendicitis, symptoms of which did not begin until he was on his return journey. I had not heard about this development when I wrote to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Teeling

May I ask my hon. Friend why he had not heard about this? It was fourteen days afterwards when he wrote to me. Is it really necessary to keep a man like this in National Service, when he has been in hospital since the beginning of December, and all his family wants is that he should come out and go home to take up an ordinary job of work?

Mr. Amery

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I would say that I am advised that the condition of appendicitis commences suddenly. In the absence of symptoms or complaints from the soldier himself, there was no reason to foresee this attack. The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is, yes. Because of foot trouble, and as a result of the medical board, my right hon. Friend has decided that Craftsman Ford should be discharged.

Mr. Shinwell

Can we have this important matter cleared up? Did the man lose his toe or his appendix?

Mr. Amery

He lost his appendix. I understand that his toe is recovering. He has been discharged.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Had he been an officer there would have been none of this joking.