HC Deb 09 May 1890 vol 344 cc576-7
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether James Davies, at the time he was injured in the execution of his duty, had worked in the hired department of the Pembroke Dockyard for more than 25 years, and was, therefore, entitled to a gratuity of £25 whenever he was discharged; can he explain why, although at the time of his injury, James Davies was earning £1 a week, and would have been entitled under the rules to a gratuity of £52 as a maximum on gecount of his injury, or in all to a gratuity of £77 as a maximum on account of his length of service and of his injury combined, when he was discharged (in consequence of the injury to his hand) he received a gratuity of £52 2s. 10d., of which £25 was due to him apart from his injury, and the balance, £27 2s. 10d., only paid to him on account of his injury; do the rules permit of pensions being granted to workmen in the dockyard who receive injuries in the performance of their duty, and is there anything in the rules which would debar James Davies from receiving a pension; and is he aware that the accident entirely incapacitated James Davies from using the injured hand, inasmuch as he has lost his thumb and middle finger and is unable to close the remaining fingers?

LORD G. HAMILTON

James Davies had completed 25 years' service at the time of his injury, and could have received a gratuity of £25 for his services, if he had been discharged on account of a redaction in the establishment, or through being invalided. In the second question there is a misapprehension of the regulations under which gratuities are awarded. The amount of a year's wages in full is the maximum compensation, for service and injury combined, which can be awarded in a case of this kind; and Davies received the full award of £52 2s. 10d. to which he was entitled. Pensions can be granted to workmen who are totally disabled by accident; but the injuries Davies received were of a less severe nature, and his capacity to earn a livelihood was only materially impaired and not totally destroyed. The injury resulted in the amputation of the thumb and middle finger of the loft hand.