HC Deb 24 May 1928 vol 217 cc2041-2

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. E. Fitzhugh, of 26, Monk Pond Street, Northampton, Reference No. 7/MF/1372, who, in 1919, was receiving 10s. a week attendance money for the loss of his left arm and left leg; whether he is aware that in 1924 this allowance was reduced by 2s. 6d., and on his appealing against this reduction it was reduced by a further 2s. 6d. to 5s. a week; and whether, in view of the absence of one leg and one arm, he will state why this man is allowed only one-third of the sum to which his disability entitled him?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon)

The hon. Member is, I fear, under a misapprehension as to the character of the allowance referred to. A constant attendance allowance is granted, within the maximum fixed by the Royal Pensions Warrant, at such amount as may be determined from time to time to represent the extent of the personal services regularly required from an attendant by the pensioner. In the case of Mr. Fitzhugh, who is in receipt of a total disability pension, the additional allowance at the rate now current was determined not as the result of appeal, as suggested in the question, but in accordance with the normal procedure as representing the extent to which the present condition of the pensioner requires such personal service. I am not aware of any grounds for an award at a higher rate for the pensioner in question.


Does the Minister of Pensions really think that 5s. is a suitable pension for the loss of one leg and one arm?


The hon. Member does not seem to be very familiar with the ease. The man is getting full pension in addition.