§ 44. Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been called to the case of W. Ashton, aged twenty-one, of 29, Tomlinson Street, Bradford, a discharged soldier, No. 22624, Northumberland Fusiliers, who, after treatment in the Northumberland War Hospital for shell-shock, was discharged on 18th April last and recommended by the board there for two months' treatment in a civil home; if this disabled ex-soldier has now been at home fifteen weeks awaiting such treatment and that his friends have been informed that there are a large number of cases on the waiting list before him; if it has been suggested by the authorities that Ashton should obtain light work for a few hours daily and that his pension is to be reduced as from 5th July next from 27s 6d. to 19s. 3d., although within the last few weeks he had a fit in a shop; if the parents of this disabled soldier are working people who have lost one son killed in the War and have one son now serving and that the disabled soldier has himself served in Gallipoli and in France; and what action he intends to take to deal with the case.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen)As stated in the question, Ashton was discharged from the Army for shell-shock, and was recommended for treatment, but the medical board appears to have considered that his case was not of such urgency as to call for his admission in priority to men who 1840 were already on the waiting list of the home to which he had been referred. It has now been arranged that he shall be brought immediately to London, and admitted to the Home of Recovery at Golders' Green, where a bed is ready for him. The reduction of pension from 27s. 6d. to 19s. 3d. is the result of an assessment of 70 per cent. incapacity by the Military Medical Board, who examined Ashton in May last, but so long as he remains at Golders' Green he will draw an allowance equivalent to pension at the highest rate of disablement, with a deduction of only 7s. a week for maintenance.
§ 41. Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of an officer suffering from shrapnel wounds who was in the Western General Hospital, Manchester, and who was, while there, gazetted out of the Army on account of ill-health, and thereafter asked to pay the hospital expenses incurred; is he aware that his Department refused to pay these expenses for the officer; and what action he proposes to take in this case?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI cannot trace the particular case referred to unless I am furnished with the officer's name and late regiment. I may, however, explain that retired officers are expected to pay the cost of their maintenance in an institution up to a limit of 4s. 6d. a day. From the facts stated it is probable that in this particular case the officer was receiving wound pension and retired pay out of which he was asked to pay 2s. 6d. a day for his maintenance. If this surmise is correct, it does not appear that inquiry or action is necessary.
§ General McCALMONTIs the House to understand that it is possible for an officer to be gazetted out of the Army while still in hospital suffering from wounds, and that in that event he is called upon to pay for his maintenance?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENYes; there are cases where officers have been gazetted out while they are in hospital. In that case they receive retired pay, and we make this charge for their maintenance—that is, board and lodging—while they are in hospital.
§ General McCALMONTHas that policy the approval of the Ministry of Pensions?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENIt is not a matter over which we have any control. It is a matter entirely for the War Office.
§ 42. Mr. J. MASONasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Harold Hollis, No. F6145, Royal Naval Air Service, air mechanic, ship "President II.," was discharged 4th August, 1917, for rheumatism and nerve trouble attributable, and received a gratuity of £10 and £l a week for twenty weeks, but has received no pension since; and whether this man is entitled to a pension?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENHollis was invalided in August, 1917, for sub-acute rheumatism, but the medical advisers of the Ministry did not regard the man's disability as due to service, and he was accordingly awarded a gratuity of £30 under Article 7 (2) of Order in Council, 30th March, 1917, payable £10 down and £l a week for twenty weeks. Hollis has appealed against the decision, and his case will come in due course before the Appeal Tribunal.
§ 44. Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the case of ex-Private V. W. Rawlings, No. 3993, who was discharged from the Army on 10th September, 1917, as being no longer physically fit for war service; whether he is aware that Raw-lings was offered, as compensation for the damage done to his health, a temporary pension of 14s. per week, of which only one instalment was sent, and a gratuity of £5; that Rawlings refused the gratuity on the ground that it was inadequate compensation; and was informed on 7th December, 1917, that his case had been referred by the Ministry of Pensions to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal; whether he is aware that on 6th March, 1918, the Pensions Appeal Tribunal unanimously decided that Rawlings's unfitness was attributable to or aggravated by military service; and that on 16th May, 1918, the Ministry of Pensions notified Rawlings that the circumstances of his case had been reviewed and that no award of pension or gratuity could be made; and whether, in view of the above facts, he will state what weight, if any, is attached to the decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENRawlings was a conscientious objector who was called up on 4th April, 1917, and posted 1842 to the Non-Combatant Corps. He did not respond to the call, and on the following day was fined by the magistrates and handed over to the military authorities. A week later he was placed under arrest for refusing to go on parade, and on 3rd May was tried by court-martial and sentenced to two years' hard labour. In July he was released and passed into Class W Reserve, to take up work of national importance, and while at that work he fell sick and was ultimately discharged from the Army on 19th September. It will be seen from these facts that Rawlings had no real military service to his credit. The decision of the Appeal Tribunal was presumably given on the technical ground that Rawlings, while in the hands of the military authorities, must be classed as a soldier, with all the consequences with regard to eligibility for pension which that description entails. It appeared to my right hon. Friend that it-would be an insult to the men who have fought to give pension for such service as this, and he accordingly directed that no award should be made. With regard to the last part of the question, while my right hon. Friend has accepted the decisions of the Appeal Tribunal in all but the most exceptional cases, he cannot delegate to them the duty which is laid upon him of being the ultimate interpreter of the Pensions Warrant.
67. Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Private H. E. Doe, No. 17347, 1st Royal Berkshire Regiment, was killed on 17th June, 1916, while on active service, and that his wife has' never received the gratuity of £5 which, prior to 1st July, 1916, was paid to widows by the Patriotic Fund, and on and after that date by the Ministry of Pensions, although she ha3 made repeated applications for the same; and will he have the matter looked into at once, in order that the allowance may be paid without further delay?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENPrivate Doe was killed in action on the 17th June, 1916, and the widow is therefore not eligible for a gratuity from the funds of the Ministry. I do not understand why Mrs. Doe failed to obtain a grant from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, and I am communicating with them in order that if any mistake has been made it may be rectified.
68. Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that ex-seaman 1843 H. Sida, whilst serving in His Majesty's ship "Belvoir," was taken ill with inflammation of the eyes, was then sent to hospital, and after several months' treatment went blind; that this man up to a few weeks ago received a pension through the local war pensions committee which has now been stopped; that the Admiralty have repudiated liability and Lave referred the matter to the Board of Trade; that the Board of Trade in their turn have stated that the Admiralty are liable, and that owing to the action of these two Government Departments this man has not received even his back pay, or any assistance beyond that referred to since his discharge, with the exception of his silver badge; and whether steps will at once be taken to secure an adequate pension being granted to this ex-sailor so as to avoid his being sent to the workhouse?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)I have been asked to answer this question. Sida served under us as a mercantile rating from 29th May, 1917, to 25th June, 1917—that is to say, a month—when he went sick and was sent to hospital. He was discharged medically unfit on 28th August, 1917. He was paid down to that date, and it is wholly incorrect to say that he has not received even his back pay. It appeared from the medical evidence that his disability was not due to his brief service with us, but, as he stated to us that he had, previous to serving with us, been serving on a steamship at the moment of her having been torpedoed, we referred the case to the Board of Trade. That Department replied that Sida has no claim to compensation, as his incapacity is not due to service on the vessel in question. However, his case is being further investigated from a, medical point of view.