asked the Secretary of State for War why, in a letter to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, on 31st January, it was stated that he was unable to recommend the discharge of National Service man 23192691 Brian A. McKeown, Duddeston, Birmingham; and why, in a letter on 10th February, it was further stated that he would appear before a medical board, when this Service man had already appeared before such a board and been discharged on 31st January.

In my letter of 31st January, I explained to the hon. Member that there were insufficient grounds for giving Signalman McKeown a compassionate discharge and that his medical condition was being investigated. The fact that the soldier had already appeared before a medical board and been recommended for discharge on medical grounds had, owing to an unfortunate error, not then been reported to me. I apologise to the hon. Member for not having given the up-to-date position.

I appreciate that Answer and thank the hon. Gentleman for it, but he will appreciate that when an hon. Member receives a letter and forwards it to a man telling him he cannot be discharged and the man writes back saying "I am already discharged," it is really very unsatisfactory. Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that that is corrected in his Department?

These mistakes are bound to happen in an organisation of the size of the army, but I should like to point out that this particular mistake did no harm whatever to Signalman McKeown. In fact, the whole case had been handled and he had been discharged within a month of the hon. Member writing.

asked the Secretary of State for War why complaints made by National Service man 23192691 Brian A. McKeown, Duddeston, Birmingham, were disregarded at Catterick Camp, Yorkshire; why, having fallen out of parade, he was marched to the sergeant major and requested to do better; why he was required to undergo an endurance test including running one mile, walking five miles, and taking an eight-foot jump; what has been the result of the investigation which he made at the request of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood, on 30th December, 1955; and what compensation will be given to this Service man for damage caused by carrying out duties for which he was unfitted.

On 1st December, Signalman McKeown underwent the normal recruits' physical efficiency test which includes the running, walking and jumping referred to. He did not report sick until 28th December, when he complained of bad feet. I have been unable to obtain confirmation of any earlier complaints about his medical condition made by the soldier to the army authorities or of his falling out from parade for medical reasons. The investigations which I made as a result of the hon. Member's letter of 30th December showed that, whilst I was not justified in granting Signalman McKeown a compassionate discharge, there were medical grounds for releasing him from the Army. The last part of the Question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Does not the Minister recollect that I have given some evidence on this matter? I have seen the man personally—he really was crippled in the ankles. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that after I called attention to the matter and had sent my letter, the man was still requested to do exercises with his foot for which he was totally unfitted? Why is it that action cannot be taken until an hon. Member asks a Question or writes a letter?

Can I ask whether the man actually cleared the 8 ft. jump? If so, will the authorities enter him for the Olympics next year?

Hon. Members:

Answer.

Order. I cannot produce answer to questions.

On a point of order—

Order. The hon. Member asked his question. I did not see the Minister rise, so I called the next Question.

Yes, but the Minister was going to rise.

If the Minister wishes to answer, and gets up and answers, I will allow him to do so.

The exercises in question were carried out by Signalman McKeown before he reported sick.