HC Deb 03 May 1911 vol 25 cc404-6
Mr. WILLIAM PEEL

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was prepared to reconsider the case of Simeon Bishop, late of the Royal Fleet Reserve, who sustained a serious injury whilst undergoing his period of training at Plymouth in 1908, and was consequently discharged from the Reserve as medically unfit; and, having regard to the fact that he is unable to support himself or his family since his discharge and has been compelled to apply to the Taunton board of guardians for maintenance, he will grant to Simeon Bishop such compensation as will enable him to maintain his independence and relieve the Taunton ratepayers from a burden which should more properly fall on the Exchequer?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)

This man was not invalided from the Royal Fleet Reserve in consequence of the comparatively trifling injury to his wrist which he sustained during his training. He was discharged for chronic rheumatoid arthritis chiefly involving the shoulder joint. After very careful consideration, however, it was decided that the injury might not impossibly have aggravated in some degree the condition which eventually necessitated his invaliding and his discharge gratuity of £13 was accordingly made up to the maximum of £50. The case does not warrant any further charge against public funds.

Mr. PEEL

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this unfortunate man was able to keep a wife and six children before the accident, and that since then he has been absolutely incapable of working for himself, and that he has been thrown with his wife and children entirely upon the rates?

Mr. McKENNA

As I have explained to the hon. Member the fact that the man was rendered absolutely incapable of work was not clue to the accident. I have given the maximum amount which is allowed out of public funds.

Mr. PEEL

Is it not a fact that the arthritis was very much increased and produced complete disability owing to the fact that he met with this accident?

Mr. McKENNA

No. I understand it may be possible that it was accelerated, but I understand that arthritis of the shoulder would not arise from an accident to the wrist. He has, however, been given the maximum which I am allowed to give.

Mr. CLYNES

asked whether, in the case of an established employé being accidentally killed, his widow or other dependents would receive the amount due under the Superannuation Act, 1909, in addition to the compensation due under the Admiralty scheme of 1907?

Mr. McKENNA

The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. CLYNES

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what procedure has to be adopted by the dependents of deceased employés in claiming compensation due for accident; what deductions, if any, are made from the amount of compensation, and for what purpose; and whether any legal expenses are required to be incurred by such dependents?

Mr. McKENNA

It is only necessary for the dependents in such cases to lodge their claim with the head of the establishment in which the deceased person was employed. The only deductions made are those imposed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, namely, the amount of any weekly payments in respect of the injury and any lump sum paid in redemption thereof. No legal expenses are required to be incurred by such dependents.