HC Deb 27 June 1916 vol 83 cc717-8
27. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

asked what, if any, arrangements have been made on and after 30th June for carrying on the work hitherto carried on by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society in respect to the advancement of money in the matter of soldiers' pensions; and whether if new bodies are to be brought into existence they will be charged with the duty of giving advice where advice is needed, a duty which has been carried out by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society?

Mr. HAYES FISHER

The Regulations (Part II.) made by the Statutory Committee under Section 3 (1) (b) of the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, provide for the advancement of funds in respect of the pensions of discharged sailors and soldiers. In reply to the latter part of the question, I may remind the hon. Member that local committees are charged by Section 4 (d) of the Act with the function of giving information and advice to applicants for pensions or grants or separation allowances.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether they do give this advice?

Mr. HAYES FISHER

They have instructions to give adequate advice, and no doubt they will give it.

33. Mr. HOGGE

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a soldier refused an increase of pension by the Chelsea Commissioners can thereafter apply to the Statutory Committee for a supplementary pension?

Mr. HAYES FISHER

It is, no doubt, competent for a soldier to make an application to the Statutory Committee for a supplementary pension in the circumstances mentioned j but the Committee would think it undesirable, without full communication with the Chelsea Commissioners, in effect to revise the decision of the Chelsea Hospital Medical Boards. The Committee have, in fact, communicated with the Commissioners in cases of this kind, and when they have been able to supply fresh evidence the Commissioners have shown themselves very ready to reconsider the matter.

Mr. HOGGE

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that would prejudice the case of an applicant or not?

Mr. HAYES FISHER

No, Sir; it would not be at all prejudicial.

Forward to