HC Deb 03 August 1916 vol 85 cc513-4W
Mr. GLANVILLE

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the decision of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. in refusing to award a pension other than £5 in settlement to S. H. Wallis, No. 16,144, who was discharged from the Navy, having lost the use of a hand in the performance of his duties on active service with the Fleet; and if a grant of this amount is held to be sufficient to meet a claim of this kind?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Wallis was invalided from the Navy on 2lst July, 1915, on account of an injury sustained by him in His Majesty's ship "Vengeance" on 1st April of that year, when he fell down the engine-room hatch and fractured one of the bones of his left hand, which resulted in loss of power in the hand, the nerves being affected. The medical report showed him to be four-tenths disabled, and, in accordance with the recognised scale of disablement pensions, an award of 10s. a week for a year was made, with a small addition for good conduct badge. On the expiry of this award, Wallis was resurveyed and reported to be materially able to contribute to his own support and to be actually in receipt of 35s. a week as an employé of the Post Office. In considering applications for the renewal of pension for disablement, earning capacity (evidenced in this case by actual earnings) has to be taken into consideration, and, under the proposals made by the Select Committee of this House, the total of earnings and pension is limited to 25s. a week. It was, therefore, not permissible to make any further award of pension to Wallis under the new disablement scale. The proviso that men who lose a limb shall in no case get less than 10s. 6d. a week pension is applicable only to cases of amputation, and not to cases of impaired use of the limb. In these circumstances Wallis was granted, under the pre-war Regulations, a gratuity of £5. The Admiralty is, however, at all times ready to consider sympathetically any case of loss of employment owing to injury sustained in the Service, and, if necessary, to resume payment of pension in accordance with the degree to which a man's earning capacity may be impaired. While, however, Wallis retains his present employment, there are no grounds for granting any further pension.