§ 26. Sir B. FALLEasked why the pension due on 3rd April to Pensioner John Ripley, No. 8522, now in Portsmouth Infirmary for the past five years, has not been paid?
§ Dr. MACNAMARARipley was awarded a life pension of£40 Gs. a year for long service in 1904. He entered the Portsmouth Workhouse Infirmary in 1912. Correspondence with the guardians showed that they proposed to claim only 2s. 6d. a week for his maintenance in the infirmary, and as his wife had undertaken to pay that sum we continued to pay his pension in full down-to 31st March of this year. When steps were being taken to issue the current quarter's pension, by a misapprehension—which I much regret—the matter was set aside on the assumption that the Guardians had and would make a claim upon the amount due to Ripley in the ordinary course and in the absence of any special arrangement. The existence, however, of the arrangement to 1108 which I have already referred was, within a few days, recalled, the matter was put straight, and Ripley's pension was issued on 20th April instead of on the 3rd.
§ 27. Sir B. FALLEasked why the 3s. 6d. additional allotment made by Stoker P. O. Bridges, serving in His Majesty's ship "Offa," to his wife, Edith M. Bridges, has not been paid, this money having been due seven months?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe additional allotment to which my hon. and gallant Friend alludes is the allotment concession sanctioned with effect from 1st October last. Payment has now been made to Mrs. Bridges.
As regards the delay, I may mention that this concession has benefited upwards of 200,000 naval ratings or their dependants, and that each man was given the option of allowing the additional money to be paid to his dependant, or of reducing his allotment, and thus retaining a greater proportion of his pay for his own use.
My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the adjustment of the men's accounts, and the issue of the additional payments, has entailed a vast amount of work which, owing to the depletion of the experienced staff of the Admiralty by the release of competent men for military service, has led to inevitable delay in a certain number of payments. The actual delay in this instance is less than appears, inasmuch as Stoker Petty Officer Bridges only signified his wishes regarding the disposal of the allotment concession on the 31st December last, and the notification thereof was not received at the Admiralty until the 14th January.
§ 28. Sir B. FALLEasked if the widow of Harry Sheath, No. 7,189, P.O. 1, D.C.M., who was entitled to the good con duct medal, which carries with it£15, will receive the same; and if the£5 kit allowance granted in the case, of His Majesty's ship "Queen Mary" will be given to Mrs. Sheath?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAStoker Petty Officer Sheath's death occurred on 31st January this year. The Good Conduct Medal was awarded to him as from 12th March, 1913, and issued in the following year. It does not appear whether or not the medal was lost at Sheath's death; but if it was, and Mrs. Sheath will establish her claim, by application, a duplicate will be issued to 1109 her. As regards the gratuity earned by service (£12 and not £15, in this case), that sum will be paid immediately Mrs. Sheath's claim to be the widow is established. The same is true regarding the kit allowance, if Mrs. Sheath's claim to be the legal representative is established. There will be no delay whatever, so far as we are concerned, in dealing with these matters.
§ 57. General McCALMONTasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the pensions granted under Article 654, Royal Warrant, to the widows and children of officers at pre-war rates are in many cases out of proportion to the present high cost of living; and whether, in view of the increases recently announced for the dependants of other ranks, he will now consider the claims of the widows and children of officers?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen)As I explained to the hon. and gallant Member in the answer I gave him on the 6th March, the dependants of officers have in the past been dealt with on a much more liberal scale proportionately than those of men. It is not, therefore, in contemplation to increase the pensions of officers' dependants at the proper time.
§ General McCALMONTBut is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these recent increases have been given owing to the increased cost of living, and does not the increased cost of living apply to officers' widows just as well as to soldiers' widows?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENIt is not true that the increase has been given because of the increased cost of living, but because it was discovered that insufficient provision had been made in certain directions.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThe new Warrant comes into operation on 1st May, and it has already been laid on the Table of the House.
§ Mr. HOGGEIs the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House going to give the opportunity he promised to discuss it?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI do not remember giving such a promise.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI think not.