§ 9. Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary for War if, in the event of new increased separation allowances to soldiers' dependants, he will see that their dependants in the Dublin Metropolitan area will be placed on the same scale as is paid to dependants in the London Metropolitan area?
§ Mr. FORSTERDependants are not paid upon a fixed scale, but on the basis of the contribution they actually made to their families, whether in Dublin or elsewhere.
§ 25. Major Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for War if, considering the number of hard cases now arising of dependants on those joining as officers or on men after enlistment, he will consider the advisability of granting the same scale of pension or allowance as in pre-war enlistment cases?
§ Mr. FORSTERThis is a matter which will, no doubt, engage the early attention of the Pensions Minister.
§ Major Sir C. HUNTERIs the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a question which brooks no delay? A great many widows, having spent all their money on the education of their sons, who have been killed, have now no means whatever?
§ Mr. FORSTERYes. I hope that there will be no delay.
§ Mr. HOGGEIs the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the duty of the Statutory Committee, and that therefore it does not depend on whether a Pensions Board is set up or not?
§ Mr. FORSTERWhat I have said is that I hope that this will engage the attention of the new Pensions Board.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKrose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
§ 37. Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardships existing among dependants of soldiers who were either unable or unwilling to establish pre-war dependence on such soldiers; and whether, in the circumstances, he can see his way to relax the rigid rule which obtains, with the exception of post-war dependence, in regard to change of circumstances in considering separation allowances?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe War Department is bound by the rule of pre-war dependence set up by the Select Committee of this House. In recognition of the hardship which such rules may occasion in particular eases, the Statutory Committee has since been set up to deal with them on discretionary lines.
§ Mr. HOGGECan the hon. Gentleman say if, and when, the Statutory Committee 141 are going to deal with the change of circumstances in regard to these payments?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am responsible for a good many things, but I am not responsible for the Statutory Committee.
§ Sir E. CARSONThe hon. Gentleman knows that it is very important that this matter should be dealt with?
§ Mr. FORSTERYes, Sir.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIs not this a reason for bringing the Statutory Committee under a Pensions Minister?
§ Mr. FORSTERI hope that before very long the hon. Gentleman will be enabled to see what our proposals are.
40. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether in the case of a man who has been separated from his wife and who has been ordered, under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, to pay her a weekly allowance, the War Office, if the man has been in arrears with his payments at the time of his enlistment, refuses to pay a separation allowance to the wife, even if he has made an allotment in her favour; whether, before making any allowance, the War Office insists on receiving a declaration from the soldier that he intends to cohabit with his wife in the future and after the War; and whether the War Office will reconsider its policy in this respect and recognise the legal obligation of maintenance as expressed in the magistrate's order and refrain from insisting that persons who are legally separated shall resume cohabitation after the War?
§ Mr. FORSTERSeparation allowance is not claimable where there was no pecuniary loss to the wife by enlistment. It is, nevertheless, granted as a concession, and without always requiring formal declaration, when there is reasonably conclusive evidence of the intention to live together after the soldier's return to civil life. While there are good grounds for the general rule, I am inquiring further into the circumstances of the particular case to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention.
Mr. SCOTTIf the wife has a magistrate's order against the soldier for a definite weekly payment, is not that evidence that she was dependent on her husband?
§ Mr. FORSTERIt depends upon whether or not the husband was making a contribution in respect of it.
Mr. SCOTTIf he ignores his duty and legal liabilities, and she has a magistrate's order for payment of the money, is not that definite evidence that she was dependent upon him?.
§ Mr. FORSTERI do not think that is the question. The question is whether or not the man was making a payment under the order?