§ 8. Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the regimental paymaster has informed Catherine Meehan, of Kilmore North, Maguiresbridge, county Fermanagh, that her son, Private Thomas Quinn, No. 2,592, C Company, 2nd Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, is missing, and that consequently the allotment of 3s. 6d. per week to her has been discontinued from 14th September ultimo; and will he direct that this payment to her be continued until it is ascertained whether her son has been killed or taken prisoner, or what has become of him?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster)Mrs. Meehan is not recorded as having been dependent on her son before enlistment or mobilisation, but he voluntarily remitted to her through the paymaster part of his pay. In accordance with regulation, pay ceased to be drawn from him four weeks after he was reported missing, and the weekly payment, therefore, ceased. I regret that I cannot continue the payment indefinitely as suggested.
§ Mr. CRUMLEYCan the hon. Gentleman do nothing for this poor woman who has lost her son and is now in a hopeless condition of poverty?
§ Mr. FORSTERI think the hon. Member knows quite well that the issue of separation allowances has to be made strictly in accordance with regulations. In the case of dependants the separation allowance is calculated in proportion to the degree of dependence on the soldier enlisting. Where there is no dependence there is no separation allowance, I am sorry to say.
§ 55. Mr. HOGGEasked whether the Government have accepted the Third Special Report from the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants); whether it is intended to persevere in the distinction drawn between the manner in which officers meet their deaths in determining the amount of the pension to their widows; and why there is no such distinction in the case of men?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna)The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Select Committee, 1594 after full deliberation, thought it unnecessary to introduce such a distinction for men, but gave a liberal rate of pension to all cases in which men met their death through the performance of military duty.
§ Mr. HOGGEDoes not my right hon. Friend think it mean, on the part of the Government, to give different pensions to women who become widows because of the death of husbands who have been officers?
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is an old distinction, and I am not aware that any complaint has been raised on behalf of the persons concerned. The Army has always recognised that there is a distinction.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs it a distinction that can be justified?
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIs it not an entirely new distinction?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken on that point.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKESo far as the report of the Committee is concerned, is it not an entirely new distinction?
§ Mr. McKENNAI am not sure that I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question. Perhaps he will be kind enough to put it down.
§ Mr. HOGGEDoes not my right hon. Friend see that it is the widow's circumstances which matter? It does not matter how the officer is killed. The widow has to live, and if she has been the wife of an officer she is entitled to the same pension however he has been killed?
§ Mr. McKENNAI agree that the widow has to live. The minimum pension is sufficient to enable her to do so. In accordance with long-established practice in our pension scheme, the minimum is raised where an officer has died in certain circumstances. My hon. Friend is asking that the maximum pensions should be given in every case.