HC Deb 29 May 1924 vol 174 cc617-8W

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air upon what grounds a disability award was refused to Private F. Forlew, No. 353,675, Royal Air Force, stationed at Lee-on-the-Solent, who was discharged on 5th March, 1924, as being unfit for further military service, seeing that Private F. Forlew was only accepted for the Royal Air Force on 14th March, 1923, and was then in good health; and whether, having regard to the fact that Forlew has since been an inmate of the London Hospital, and is at present at inmate of St. Bartholomew's Hospital suffering from empyema contracted while on military duty, he will see his way to make such a grant to Private Forlew as will recompense him for his suffering and outlay?


In answer to the first part of the question, an airman who is invalided in consequence of a disability not directly attributable to the conditions of service and who has not completed one year's service, is not eligible under the Regulations for a disability award. Aircraftsman Forlew's disability, though it asserted itself during his service, was not so attributable, being regarded by the medical authorities as due to constitutional causes, and no award is, therefore, issuable to him. As regards the second part of the question, a discharged airman, whose disability is not directly attributable. to the conditions of service, is not entitled to medical treatment at the expense of Air Force funds. I regret, therefore, that no grant can be made in this case.

Captain BOWYER

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Mr. J. Franklin, of 20, Moreton Road, Buckingham (Pension Issue Office, Bromyard Avenue, Reference 11/M/67,833); is he aware that Mr. Franklin was notified of a, final award on 19th July, 1921, against which he successfully appealed in October, 1923; that the tribunal increased the award and fixed the rate of disablement at 6 to 14 per cent. indeterminate duration; that Mr. Franklin's last weekly payment was due on the 21st May, 1924, and that his gratuity will be paid on the 28th May; and, in view of the fact that Mr. Franklin claims to be no better now than he was when last boarded, and seeing that he has been refused a further appeal, how is it proposed to compensate Mr. Franklin for his continuing disability?


The full amount of compensation provided by Article 1 of the Royal Warrant in respect of the small degree of disablement sustained has been awarded in this case. The man remains, however, eligible for any treatment, that may be deemed necessary at any time for his disability and for allowances under Article 6 of the Warrant, if necessary.

Forward to