§ 60. Mr. Pooleasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the in justices which are being inflicted on many disabled ex-servicemen by the operation 1894 of the Royal Warrant; and whether he will consider getting it so amended as will result in disabled ex-servicemen receiving pensions commensurate with the injuries they have received?
§ Mr. Furness (Lord of the Treasury)I have been asked to reply. I am advised that the suggestion in the first part of the question is certainly not borne out by experience and that the existing authorities already adequately secure the object in view.
§ Mr. PooleIs the Minister aware that many of these men are suffering serious hardship, and is he not prepared to do anything to prevent them from being thrown upon the mercy of public assistance authorities where many of them find themselves at the present time.
§ Mr. FurnessI can assure the hon. Member that the Minister fully investigates all the cases that are brought to his notice.
§ Mr. N. MacleanIs it not the case that a very large number of ex-service men are, through their injuries, suffering a worsening of health and are being thrown upon the public assistance committees; and does he not think that it is time that this particular warrant should be re-examined in order to re-consider the cases of those who are presently on public assistance?
§ Mr. FurnessThe hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot debate this matter, but clearly the Minister will keep a constant watch on these points.
§ Mr. MacleanHas not the Minister been keeping a constant watch all the time?
§ Mr. TinkerWill the hon. Gentleman convey the feeling of the House on this question to his hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and ask him to have it examined again?
§ Mr. PooleIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
§ 61. Mr. Pooleasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. W. V. Dawkings, a disabled ex-service patient in Roehampton, was recently refused permission to go to the lavatory for four days in an attempt to break the 1895 man's resistance to being discharged; on whose instructions was this done; and what action does he propose to take to avoid a repetition of such treatment?
§ Mr. FurnessMr. Dawkings was, on completion of his treatment, transferred to a single-bedded side ward because he refused to leave the hospital, and made himself a disturbing influence in the general ward. He was provided with the facilities usually made for patients in these circumstances and, indeed, was allowed to go to the lavatory when he requested it. Mr. Dawkings, on leaving the hospital on the 21st instant, expressed his apologies for having caused trouble and his gratitude for the kindness shown him.
§ Mr. PooleIs not the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Dawkings only left the hospital when he was accorded an interview at the Ministry of Pensions in order that he might state his case, and that the reply of the Minister is not borne out by the statement of Dawkings; and does he think that this is a satisfactory way of taking disciplinary action?
§ Mr. Noel-BakerWill the hon. Member ask the Minister of Pensions to make a personal inquiry into this case, of which I have knowledge, and in which I know that the hardship has been very great to a man who has served the country very gallantly.
§ Mr. FurnessI will convey that request to my hon. Friend.