§ 7. Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Mrs. Bridget Cosgrove, of Church Street, Rath-keale, county Limerick, was receiving Navy separation allowance in respect of her son, Michael Cosgrove, who was stoker on H.M. motor lighter "K 10," as the certificate, No, 032,213, dated 22nd April, 1915, from the Accountant-General of the Navy proves; that for a considerable time past she recived no allowance, and has not got any news of her son; whether he will say if she is entitled to a pension; and, if so, why she has not received it?
§ Dr. MACNAMARACosgrove disappeared on the night of the 1st February, 1916, and as there is no sufficient evidence on which to presume death, he must be regarded as having deserted. No steps have therefore been taken to award a pension. Separation allowance of 2s. 6d. a week (in addition to allotment of 5s. a week) was paid until 13th July last, in clusive.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYWas he on board ship when he deserted?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI will find that out. I cannot say off hand.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYOn what ground is it supposed that he deserted?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI shall be very glad to show my hon. Friend the papers about the matter. There is no other presumption but that he deserted. The separation allowance was paid in full from February down to July, but it should have been stopped long before that time.
11. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are a considerable number of cases in which seamen's wives and mothers are receiving a smaller separation allow allowance, sometimes as much as 6s. a week less, including the maximum allotment, than the wives and mothers of soldiers in similar circumstances; when did the Admiralty first issue orders advising sailors' dependants under such conditions to apply to the Statutory Committee for a supplementary allowance; and is he aware that the Statutory Committee has all along refused to make supplementary grants in such cases, it being outside its province to supplement an inadequate flat rate?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThere are cases such as my hon. Friend mentions in the first part of his question, but they are few in number, and it does not follow that there is hardship involved by the difference in the payment. An Admiralty Order was issued in June, 1915, promulgating the principal Regulations governing the grant of Navy separation allowance, and as it was realised that no series of Regulations, could provide adequately for every individual case, it was then stated that a Statutory Committee was in course of formation and that one of its functions would be to consider the question of making awards in any such exceptional instances. I can quite realise that the-Statutory Committee might take exception to supplementing an inadequate flat rate, but I am not aware that the Committee has refused to supplement Navy—or, in fact, Army—separation allowances when, but for such supplementation, hardship would be entailed?
Mr. SCOTTDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that no hardship is involved in paying a sailor's wife 6s. a week less than a soldier's wife? Is he not aware that in these cases in which the Admiralty on policy pays a sailor's wife 6s. a week less than a sailor's wife the Statutory Committee have absolutely refused to supplement it, and say it is a matter for the Admiralty?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI can imagine that the Statutory Committee refuse to supplement the flat rate if they think it adequate, but if hardship can be shown I have yet to learn that they have refused to consider a case of that kind.
Mr. SCOTTWhat does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "hardship"? Does he mean hardship arising out of other 1307 circumstances than those connected with the rate, or hardship arising out of the fact that the Admiralty pays an inadequate amount?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have said that the rate generally is considered fair. I have already said, in reply to a previous question, that I am in communication with the Statutory Committee with reference to the very cases he was then putting to me.
12. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are any men in the Royal Naval Division now serving as soldiers in France who are prohibited from making a larger allotment than 8s. a week to their wives, and whose wives therefore, if they have a large family, are in a worse position than the wives of the other soldiers alongside whom they are fighting?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAA comparison of the figures shows that the pay and separation allowance issued in respect of an A.B. of the Royal Naval Division in France are together in excess of the pay and separation allowance of a private soldier so long as the family consists of one, two or three children, but less if it consists of four or more. As stated in answer to previous questions, the scale of Navy separation allowances has been so fixed that when taken in conjunction with Navy pay it produces in the general case substantially the same result.
Mr. SCOTTAs the right hon. Gentleman says the statement is right that the sailor's wife is getting less than the soldier's wife where there is a large number of children and where the sailor and the soldier are serving together in the trenches in France, why did he give me a contrary answer last Wednesday?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI do not remember that.
§ 58. Mr. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that certain troops now in Egypt were under the impression when embarking that it was not necessary to make allotments providing their wives signed a statement to the effect that no allotments were desired by them in excess of the "Government allowances; whether he is 1308 aware that many among these troops from the time of landing in Egypt have, till recent date, received their full military pay, this leading the men to believe that a Regulation existed providing for the arrangement mentioned; whether, in point of fact, there was and is any such Regulation; and, if not, what steps will be taken to meet the circumstances of the debt now standing to the accounts of the men?
§ Mr. FORSTERNo, Sir, I am not aware of any such occurrence, but perhaps my hon. Friend will give me full particulars.