12. Mr. T. THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Ministry of Pensions, in a letter dated the 12th instant, reference Treatment/INS/N.G.R., 861, stated that Stoker James Robinson, First Class, No. K.24942, Royal Navy, was awarded a gratuity of £15, but as, up to the 30th April, 1918, there was no provision for the Ministry bearing the cost of a man's maintenance in a mental hospital, the gratuity was absorbed by the cost of maintenance prior to that date; and whether, in view of the decision of the Admiralty that it is not allowable for deductions to be made from war gratuity on account of hospital treatment, he will ask the Ministry of Pensions to refund to Stoker James Robinson the £15 war gratuity which they state they have received on this man's account?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig)I have been asked to answer this question. This man was discharged on 2nd September, 1915, with neurasthenia, not attributable to service. 1.1 April, 1918, he was awarded a gratuity of £15. In May, 1918, the clerk to the Middlesbrough Asylum reported that Robinson had been admitted to the asylum on 27th November, 1915, and had remained there until 20th April, 1917, that he had again been admitted on 12th January, 1918, and was still an inmate. The asylum was then instructed to classify him as a Service patient, and from 10th April, 1918, his wife and two children have been receiving full allowances. The gratuity was withheld to meet any claim which the guardians might make to meet the cost (over £50) of his maintenance prior to classification. The guardians have been asked whether they will waive their claim in favour of Mrs. Robinson. If they agree to do so the amount will be issued to her less the sum of £2 10s. advanced by the war pensions committee. The decision of the Admiralty applies only to the war gratuities issued by that Department.
Mr. THOMSONIs it understood that these charges are to be deducted from gratuities granted by the Admiralty? Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable to differentiate in this way the claims made on gratuities granted.
§ Sir J. CRAIGThat is a rather wide question. If my hon. Friend will put down a specific case, 1 shall be very glad to consider it.