I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) for raising this matter and also for letting me know the specific points which he intended to mention. I also thank him for the opportunity which he has given me of explaining the position of the War Office in the matter. As he said, we aim at being good employers, and I hope to show that we have taken as sympathetic a view as possible of this case, and that we shall continue to do so.

The chief difficulty has been that seven years elapsed between the time of the alleged accident and the claim put in by Mr. McCarthy through my hon. Friend. After seven years it is very hard to obtain independent confirmation of an accident of this kind. The trouble is that, without confirmation, the War Office cannot accept the claim. The onus of proof must lie with the claimant. I feel bound to say that such evidence as we have got does not appear to substantiate Mr. McCarthy's claim. We have made an extensive examination of such records as there are, and they show no trace of an accident to Mr. McCarthy in 1947.

It is, however, shown that Mr. McCarthy suffered, and also reported, five other minor accidents during the 10 years which he spent in the service of the War Office. That shows that he was aware of the procedure of reporting to the appropriate authority any injury which he received. The fact remains that he did not report any accident in 1947. What we have got a record of is that in March, 1947, Mr. McCarthy was absent from work for one month with acute conjunctivitis. That fact is recorded, not in the injury record where an accident would be recorded, but in the sick record.

During that period Mr. McCarthy does not appear to have drawn injury pay, as he would have done if his state of health had been the result of an accident. Our inquiries have revealed that Mr. McCarthy received a knock in his right eye in 1946 in the course of his duties while he was unloading a truck. Therefore, in June, 1954, after my hon. Friend had brought this matter to the attention of my predecessor, we arranged for a specialist to examine Mr. McCarthy at the expense of the War Office.

This specialist's examination revealed that there was no trace of any disability as a result either of the 1947 accident or indeed of the earlier accident in 1946. It also showed that Mr. McCarthy's sight at that time was normal, with spectacles. In July, 1954, Mr. McCarthy was examined by another specialist who, I understand from my hon. Friend, described him as being virtually blind.

Whether there is any conflict between the opinions of those two eminent specialists, I am not competent to say. If there is no conflict, it would appear that during the month from June to July, 1954, there had been a sharp deterioration in Mr. McCarthy's sight. However that may be, the opinion of either specialist does not constitute any proof that the state of Mr. McCarthy's sight was the result of the accident which he alleges took place in 1947.

In February this year my hon. Friend adduced another piece of evidence which has considerably more bearing on the case. He has mentioned it himself. He produced a statement from another doctor, Dr. Roberts, who said that he had seen Mr. McCarthy in March, 1947, and that at that time Mr. McCarthy had said that he had had an accident to his eye, and that the state of his eye was consistent with an accident as described by Mr. McCarthy.

As I have said, that has admittedly a bearing on this case. In fact, it is really the only piece of evidence that we have got which has a bearing on the case. But we still cannot accept what Dr. Roberts has said as independent proof of the accident. What he has said in effect is that the state of Mr. McCarthy's eyesight was consistent with an accident as described, but this is not proof of the accident, nor indeed is it proof that if Mr. McCarthy had suffered an accident as described, that accident was necessarily suffered in the course of his duties.

The present position, therefore, is this. On such evidence as we have at the present time, we are not able, with the best will in the world, to award compensation. On the other hand, we do not regard this case as closed, and if any fresh substantial evidence can be produced which has a bearing on the case to show that Mr. McCarthy did, in 1947, suffer an accident as he describes, and that the injury was attributable to it, or alternatively if the state of Mr. McCarthy's sight can be shown to be attributable to the earlier accident which we know he did suffer in 1946, then we shall be only too glad to re-open this case and consider Mr. McCarthy's claim further.