MR. GORSTasked, Whether it is a fact that the payment of Naval Pensions due April 1st has in the Chatham district not yet commenced; what steps will be taken by the Admiralty to expedite the payment of these pensions; and, whether measures will be taken to prevent on a future occasion the inconvenience and distress caused by the non-receipt of moneys upon which the 1260 pensioners have been accustomed to rely?
§ MR. CHILDERSIn reply to the hon. and learned Member, I have to remind him that I answered a general Question on this subject some days ago, and on Friday I stated that the delay in paying the pensions at Plymouth, which I was at a loss to understand, had led to an officer being specially sent there. We also found delays at Chatham, and sent an officer on Saturday there; and I hear by telegraph to-day that the issue to 2,700 pensioners (Army, Navy,&c.) is now concluded. These delays, as I have already informed the House, will not occur again.
§ MR.PULESTONasked whether there was any objection to allowing these pensioners to go personally for their pensions? It would save both time and expense.
§ MR. CHILDERSThe present system was established in order to remove the temptation which existed previously to pensioners to go and spend their money as soon as they received it. There is no intention to return to the old arrangement.
§ MR. MACLIVERasked whether it was a fact that the pension papers must be signed by four Staff officers?
§ MR. CHILDERSI am unable to reply to that Question without Notice.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked whether it would not be desirable to station a Staff officer at Woolwich?
§ MR. CHILDERSI do not think that it is necessary that an officer should be stationed at that place.