§ Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the case of the wounded sailor Rudgley, invalided out of the Navy, on account of his wound, and lately certified by a doctor to be permanently injured, he will now again allow him the pension of 1s. 1d. a day, of which he has been deprived since September, 1911?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)Although Rudgley is admittedly "permanently injured" the Regulations do not, except in special circumstances, contemplate the continuance of pensions for life to men with only short service. In awarding pensions in such cases consideration is given both to the character of the injury and to the man's capacity to contribute to his own support. Until it can be definitely established, in accordance with the condition already prescribed by the Admiralty, that Rudgley is, as a result of his injury, unable to work, there do not appear to be sufficient reasons for re-opening the case.
§ Mr. HUNTIn view of the fact that the man is permanently injured, would not a man in civil employment have his pension continued by a civil employer?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question.
§ Sir CLEMENT K1NLOCH-COOKEIs it not a fact that, although the man may be able to contribute to his own support, it is also a fact that no one can employ him?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThis man is undoubtedly injured, probably permanently lamed, but he can contribute to his own support.
§ Sir. C. KINLOCH-COOKEIf the man contributes to his own support, is it not a fact that the Workmen's Compensation Act precludes him from being employed in any other kind of work?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThis man, although he has been injured, still is able to contribute to his own support. He has been in employment, as the hon. Gentleman knows, recently.
§ Sir. C. KINLOCH-COOKEI do not know anything about this man.