BRITISH ARMY (MR. M. WILKINSON) (Hansard, 9 November 1965)

§ Mr. Peter Doig (Dundee, West)

I desire to draw attention to what I believe to have been an injustice to one of my constituents, a Mr. Michael Wilkinson, who joined the Army on 1st June of this year. At that time, when he had a medical examination, he informed the doctor that he had previously attempted to join and had been rejected because of ear trouble. In spite of volunteering that information, which the Ministry accept that he gave to the doctor at that time, the doctor passed him as medically fit for service in the Forces. On the strength of that, he gave up his civilian job, but he found that, in the words of the Ministry of Defence, he was discharged after only a few days' service". I wrote a letter to the Ministry of Defence suggesting that compensation ought to be paid to him, and it was refused. I want to quote part of the letter that I received from the Under-Secretary, in which he says: It is of course unfortunate that his ear condition was not discovered at that stage and because it was not, that Michael gave up his civilian employment to enlist in the Army. 153 It seems to me that to describe that as "unfortunate" is an under-statement. It was the Department's mistake, if a mistake was made. It is wrong that my constituent should have to suffer because of that mistake. After all, he has lost his job, and he must have incurred some expenses on joining. I know that when I joined during the war, I had to buy quite a lot of things that I would never have bought otherwise, and I have no doubt that he had to do the same.

Having told his friends that he was joining the Army, he also suffered the embarrassment of meeting them within a few days and having to explain that he had been discharged. That can be quite embarrassing. Taking all things together, I feel that he deserved better treatment than he got, because all he got was seven days' paid leave.

I want to quote another part of the Defence Ministry's letter as the excuse for his rather niggardly treatment. They say: His situation, however, is essentially no different from what it would have been had he given up that employment for another civilian job, which for some reason was found to be unsuitable. In the first place, he did not find the job unsuitable. He was found to be unsuitable for the job, for a trouble to which he had drawn their attention when he had his medical examination.

It seems to me that there is a vast difference between changing from one civilian job to another and changing from a civilian job to enlist in Her Majesty's Forces. It seems to me that there is a vast difference between the two.

There is one further passage that I wish to quote from this letter. My hon. Friend said: I think that, by allowing him to go home on paid leave after the Medical Board on 17th June had recommended his discharge until the 25th June when the final discharge formalities were completed, the Army treated him perfectly fairly. The leave was, in effect, equivalent to a period of paid notice and I cannot see that any further compensation is justified. The paid notice was the minimum that any employer could give and I think that that was pretty niggardly treatment. Mr. Wilkinson has not been treated fairly at all, and I think that he is due some compensation from the Army.

154 I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the effect that this case could have on future recruitment for the Army or, for that matter, for the other Services. I seems to me that someone who has the slightest doubt about his medical condition, even if he draws the doctor's attention to it, and even if he is thoroughly examined, may find that, having given up his civilian job and torn up his roots, he can be discharged within a few days with nothing more than the minimum paid leave which any employer would have to give.

I think that my constituent has had a raw deal, and I ask my hon. Friend to look at this case again to see whether Mr. Wilkinson can be treated a little more fairly than he has been, bearing in mind the effect that this could have on other possible recruits for the Army or for the other arms of Her Majesty's Forces.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)

My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has very briefly covered the ground affecting the case of his constituent Mr. Michael Wilkinson. I am in complete agreement with all the information—it is basically factual information—which my hon. Friend has put before the House. Mr. Michael Wilkinson was medically examined, and I am sorry that a mistake was made in carrying out that examination. The defect from which he was suffering was not discovered until he had a further medical examination when he reported at the depot.

He is 19 years old and in civilian life he was employed as a locomotive fireman. When he reported for a medical examination on 19th May, 1965, to join the Black Watch, he did, as my hon. Friend said, draw attention on the form that he had to fill in to the fact that he had previously been rejected on medical grounds when he tried to join the Army in 1963. Nevertheless the medical officer, having been told by Mr. Wilkinson that since that examination he had satisfactorily passed a civilian medical examination, examined him and could find no reason for rejecting him on the grounds of ear trouble, and Mr. Wilkinson therefore reported to the Highland Brigade Depot on 31st May.

155 The procedure in all cases is that after the initial medical examination there is a further medical examination when the recruit arrives at the depot. This was carried out, and the medical officer suspected that there was ear trouble. Therefore, in accordance with normal procedure, he sent him to see a specialist. Mr. Wilkinson was examined by a specialist on 9th June, 1965, about ten days after joining the Army. The specialist reported that Mr. Wilkinson suffered from a perforation of the right eardrum. He was given a medical board on 17th June, and told that he was to be recommended for discharge on medical grounds. As my hon. Friend said, he was sent home on leave until the final formalities were completed on 25th June.

I must stress that Mr. Wilkinson presumably knew that he had a perforated eardrum when he went for his initial medical examination. He said that he had suffered from ear trouble, but not that he had a perforated eardrum. This was not discovered then, but I do not think it could have proved a shock to him when, about 10 days later, he had a further medical examination and the medical officer suspected that he did in fact suffer from ear trouble. I would go further and say that I doubt whether he was surprised that the specialist diagnosed his condition during a further medical examination on 9th June.

I am sorry that this has happened, but my hon. Friend must realise that we have to carry out medical examinations in all three Services on about 71,000 men and women every year. Unfortunately, whatever system we have some mistakes are bound to be made. We take action continually to try to reduce the number of those mistakes and we have been successful in more than halving the number of errors of this kind that have occurred during the last six years. We are at present looking again at the organisation which now exists for carrying out these initial medical examinations to see if there is any other way in which we can improve the system to cut down the regrettable errors that occur from time to time. But there will be a certain number of errors like this when we are having to deal with 71,000 medical examinations every year.

156 My hon. Friend based his argument on the fact that his constituent ought to receive some compensation from my Department. My hon. Friend says that Mr. Wilkinson lost his job. I prefer to say that he gave up his job to join the Army, as he would have had to do if he had taken any other form of employment. My hon. Friend went on to say that he was put to some expense in joining. This would have been minimal, because he would have received a day's pay and a railway warrant to take him to the Highland Brigade's depot—a journey from Dundee to Aberdeen.

The only other point made by my hon. Friend concerned the embarrassment which he claims his constituent suffered by reason of his not having been accepted by the Army and of his having to tell his friends that he was regarded as being unfit for service in the Army, after probably having boasted that he was going to join and to make it his career. I am sorry about this, but embarrassment is not something that we can measure in cash terms and relate to a claim for compensation. I do not think that it was a shock to Mr. Wilkinson to find that he had a perforated eardrum. He knew that he had ear trouble, and he put this down on the form he signed. But the medical officer did not discover the exact nature of the ear trouble at the preliminary medical examination.

I am sorry that I cannot find anything in the three points made by my hon. Friend, namely, that his constituent lost his job, or gave it up, as I prefer to say—as he would have given up his job to take any other employment; that his constituent was put to the expenses of joining, because I cannot believe that the amount incurred on joining the Highland Brigade was anything other than marginal, and that embarrassment was caused to his constituent, because that is not something which can be measured in cash terms. On the question of compensation, therefore, I am afraid that I have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot see anything in what he has put forward this evening, or in the correspondence that he has sent to me, to suggest that there is any case on which one could assess any form of cash compensation.

From correspondence that I have received from my hon. Friend I understand 157 that Mr. Wilkinson now feels in some way or other scorned by the Army, and takes the view that having been rejected by the Army he can no longer be a useful citizen. Because somebody has been rejected for the Army on medical grounds it does not necessarily follow that he cannot be a useful citizen in civilian life. The medical standard for the Army has to be higher than that required for a more sedentary or normal civilian occupation. We would have done him a disservice if, having discovered that he had a perforated eardrum, we had accepted him into the Army and he had been sent overseas. He might have been caused considerable pain, and might have even further damaged his ear. Had he been kept in the Army in this country he would have had a restricted career, and his promotion prospects would have been negligible.

But our having discovered, perhaps belatedly, this medical defect which not 158 only meant that he was not able to have a full career in the Army, but that it was impossible for him to serve in any circumstances as a soldier, we had no other choice than to medical board him and send him back into civilian life. This does not mean that he is medically incapable of carrying on any other occupation and having a good career in civilian life. As far as the Army is concerned, this is no form of disgrace. He simply was not up to the exacting medical standards required by the Army. I am sorry that we could not accept him as a soldier, but I sincerely hope that he will quickly find another job. He probably has done so already. I assume he has done so. In any case I hope that he will make a successful career in some other form of employment.