§ Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now say if W. Rudgley, the sailor wounded in action and permanently injured thereby, is again to receive his pension of 1s. 1d. a day, which was stopped last October?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)Rudgley was resurveyed as recently as 23rd April last. He was then reported to be in employment, and to be materially able to contribute to his own support. In these circumstances I see no reason for reopening the case at the present time. As regards the general principles governing the award of pensions in such cases, I must refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave him on 2nd April and 12th March.
§ Mr. HUNTAre we to understand that although this man is admittedly permanently injured, the Admiralty propose to treat him worse than a private employer?
§ Dr. MACNAMARARudgley has just under seven years' service, and he received a gunshot wound at Tientsin in July, 1900. The Regulations do not, except in special circumstances, contemplate a continuing 1563 pension for life for a man with only short service. The nature of the injury and the man's capacity to contribute to his own support are the basis on which these pensions are considered.
§ Mr. HUNTIf this man had been injured under a private employer would he not have come under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes, but, as I have often stated, neither the soldier nor the sailor is under the Workmen's Compensation Act.