Skip to main content

Appeal (J Melia)

Volume 154: debated on Tuesday 30 May 1922

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

29.

asked the Minister of Pensions why in the case of John Melia, of Heywood, whose appeal was allowed by the House of Lords Tribunal, the amount of £24 3s. 8d. was deducted, an amount that he had received in weekly payments under a previous award; and why no allowance was paid for the nine months that transpired between his allowance being cut off and his case coming before the House of Lords Tribunal, which body allowed his appeal?

The question referred to the Tribunal was whether aggravation of the disability by service had passed away, and that being decided in the man's favour, an appropriate award of a final weekly allowance was made. Awards of this nature are made where the disablement is less than 20 per cent. and are of a limited aggregate amount. It was, therefore, necessary to take into account the amount paid under the earlier award for which the current award was substituted. I may add that the man has gained substantially by the success of his appeal.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how they would have recovered the £24 3s. 8d. if the man had lost his appeal at the House of Lords Tribunal?

The position is that when a disability is under 20 per cent. the man gets a final award in a series of weekly payments which come to an end, but the man is not entitled to two sets of weekly payments, as suggested by my hon. Friend.

Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that an award was made that this man should receive 104 weeks' benefit at a certain rate, which amounts to a given sum, and that it is proposed to take £24 3s. 8d. from it?

I think that perhaps I did not make the matter quite clear. When a man is given a final payment, that is a payment which is obviously intended to close the case; he cannot have two final payments.