HC Deb 27 February 1933 vol 275 cc29-30W

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of H. Crabtree, of 8, Lion Street, Bacup, No. 3/MC/4,886, who was granted treatment with allowances from May, 1930, until June, 1931; registered as fit for work at the Labour Exchange from June, 1931, until March, 1932, drawing unemployment benefit; again admitted to hospital from March to May, 1932, and September to December, 1932, but refused treatment allowances; and whether, in view of this and similar cases, the Minister will review the regulations governing the payment of treatment allowances in order that allowances may be paid in cases where a pensioner is removed from the labour market for the purpose of receiving treatment?

Major TRYON:

I would remind my hon. Friend that treatment allowances are, as I pointed out in the detailed answer which I gave him on 30th November last, intended to compensate for actual loss of wages or profits which would be received if the man were not undergoing treatment and, although consideration is always given to cases in which the man is no more than temporarily and for a brief period out of work, I should have no authority to deal similarly with cases in which earnings have definitely ceased for a prolonged period. Up to the time of his admission to hospital in 1933 Mr. Crabtree had done no work since 1929, except for a few hours on one occasion only, and in these circumstances he was not eligible for the special allowances. During hospital treatment, while being himself maintained free of cost, he continued to draw without deduction his pension of 28s. a week.