§ 14. Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Pensions why and upon whose 598 instructions the constant - attendance allowance paid to Gilroy Dunstan, 134, Markfield Road, Tottenham, who lost both legs as a result of his war service, was stopped without warning on 5th November, 1924?
Lieut.-Colonel STANLEYThe constant-attendance allowance which was being paid in this case was, I find, interrupted in the ordinary course by a period of in-patient treatment which the man underwent. On the termination of treatment, the allowance should, according to the Regulations, have been reconsidered at once, but owing to a regrettable oversight delay occurred. As soon, however, as the matter was brought to notice, arrears of the allowance which otherwise would have been paid to him were at once paid.
§ Mr. MORRISONIs the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that when this oversight was discovered—it is the first time an oversight has been admitted!—that this constant-attendance allowance was continued, not at the rate of per week, but at 5s. per week?
Lieut.-Colonel STANLEYThat is not quite the same point. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about the arrears, which were paid up. My right hon. Friend has explained to the hon. Gentleman why the amount was varied later.
§ Mr. MORRISONThe original point was that I was anxious to know why this man's allowance was stopped without warning at all and the man left stranded. He had no allowance for some weeks?
Lieut.-Colonel STANLEYIt was an oversight which should not have occurred—I agreed—but the arrears at that time were paid up as soon as the error was discovered.