HC Deb 08 December 1920 vol 135 cc2139-40W

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Private Henry Goulding, No. 60451, late Royal Engineers, now residing at 92, Lime Street, Wigan, was examined by the medical board at Bolton, Lancashire, nine months ago but has not yet received any pension; that this man has a wife and two young children; and will he expedite the allocation of his pension, seeing that he is now dependent upon Poor Law relief?


Private Goulding has now been informed that the disability in respect of which he claimed pension cannot be regarded as due to service, and that, consequently, no award of pension can be made to him. Should he desire to appeal against, this decision, his local committee will assist and advise him in preparing his case for hearing by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that ex-Corporal H. Montgomery, No. 511198, 2/14th London Regiment, London Scottish, was examined by a medical board at Watford on 24th June last, and was subsequently awarded a pension of 10s. 8d. to date from 15th July, 1920; that the pension has been four times incorrectly issued, the last form authorising the payment of nine weeks' and six days' pension at the rate of 6s., instead of 18 weeks and six days at 10s. 8d. per week; and, seeing that notwithstanding repeated applications ex-Corporal Montgomery has so far been unable to draw any of the money due to him under the award of 15th July last, will he have inquiries made into this case?


I very much regret the delay which has occurred in this case. The matter has now been set right and authority for payment of all arrears due authorised.

Captain BOWYER

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Private H. C. Grant, No. 9,528, Royal Army Service Corps (Chelsea Ref. No. 11/M/72,712), who, on the 6th July, 1917, was again awarded total disablement pension and whose wife was then also awarded constant attendance allowance whether in spite of repeated claims no constant attendance allowance was paid until the 13th August, 1919, and even then was not made retrospective, in spite of the fact that during this period more than one medical board granted him the constant attendance allowance for his wife; why such treatment has been meted out to Mr. Grant; and will he cause the constant attendance allowance to be paid retrospectively without delay?


I have not yet been able to complete my inquiries into this case, but I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend at an early date.