§ Mr. COMPTON
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Harold Lee, of 130, South Street, Manchester, Ministry of Pensions reference 3/N/5,561, who, being of opinion that in accordance with Article 5 of the Royal Warrant of 1919 he could claim pension on deterioration, and who was also unaware that under the Final Awards Regulations there is a time limit of 12 months during which an appeal should be made, submitted an appeal to the appeal tribunal; whether he is aware that the tribunal decided that, as this appeal was not entered within the statutory time, the tribunal have no jurisdiction to deal with it, se that, apart from obtaining a pension to which he is apparently entitled, Mr. Lee lost a considerable amount of time in prosecuting a, claim; and whether, seeing that a large number of men have been similarly treated, he will consider the issue of Regulations providing that in all cases where the appeal tribunal reject a claim as out of date, that the man shall be examined by members of the medical staff of the Ministry with the object that, if it be found that the applicant should be in receipt of pension, the case shall be submitted to the Treasury for authority to award a pension under the Dispensing Warrant?1544W
§ Viscount CURZON
My right hon. Friend understands that in the case referred to, the man, whose last award was made in 1920, made no appeal either to the medical appeal board or subsequently to the appeal tribunal, as he was entitled to do, and has not otherwise been under the observation of the Ministry in any respect since that date. My right hon. Friend is not able to adopt literally the suggestion in the last part of the question, but an instruction is already in operation, under the arrangements which have been previously stated in the House, whereby in cases in which it appears that the man is substantially worse, any necessary correction of the final award made in his case may be effected, if it is found as the result of medical treatment and observation that there was a serious error of assessment for permanent purposes. There is no evidence that this is the case in the present instance.