§ Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Minister of Pensions whether ex-Gunner David M'Skimming, No. 1685, 19th Company, Royal Garrison Artillery, 10, Grace Drive, Linthouse, who enlisted on 31st August, 1914, and was discharged on 12th April, 696W 1915, as physically unfit for military service, has received no pension in spite of repeated applications; whether this man has proved by documents from his doctor, his approved society, and his employer that he had had no illness which took him off employment prior to his enlistment; whether the pensions office has received those documents; whether he is aware that this man has lost the use of his legs, and his doctor has signed a certificate stating that his illness was contracted while on active service; whether he is aware that this man was an efficient workman prior to his illness, being a foreman plater in a Clydeside shipbuilding yard; and whether he can state what action he proposes to take to recompense this man and enable him to maintain his home?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe facts of the case are not completely or accurately stated in the question. All the evidence supplied in this case was carefully considered by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal on 26th June, 1919, after a previous adjournment for a neurological specialist's report. The tribunal decided that Mr. McSkimming's unfitness was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. I must accept this decision as final. In these circumstances, it was only possible to award a final weekly allowance, under Article 7 of the Warrant, of 15s. 6d. a week for fourteen weeks.
Sir H. COWAN askedthe Minister of Pensions whether he can now state that the case of, Mr. Robert Buchan, of 23, Jamaica Street, Peterhead, will be reconsidered by the pensions tribunal; and when a decision in this case is likely to be reached?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThis case was heard on appeal by the Appeal Tribunal, and a decision was given that Mr. Buchan's disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. The further medical evidence supplied by my hon. Friend has been again considered, but I am advised that all the facts were before the Appeal Tribunal, whose decision I must therefore accept as final.