§ 40. General McCALMONTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has had an opportunity of investigating any specific case where it has been alleged that a deduction has been made from the accounts of a deceased soldier for the cost of the blanket in which he was buried; and whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
§ Mr. FORSTERYes, Sir; a case of this nature in Scotland was brought to my notice, and sufficient details were given to 1345 enable the facts to be ascertained. As a result of the investigation, I am able to give an emphatic denial to the allegation. It appears that a mother was in receipt of dependent's allowance in respect of her two soldier sons, and that four weeks after the death of one of the sons the amount of the allowance which she drew for two weeks together was some 5s. less than she expected to receive. She was unable to account for this, and another woman who was in the post-office at the same time suggested that it was for the cost of the winding-sheet in which her son was buried. In this way considerable publicity was given to the story. The facts are that owing to a mistake the mother had received a slight overpayment of the allowance for several weeks, and the error was adjusted by deducting the excess from the two weeks' allowance.
I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving me the opportunity of repeating the assurance, which I have given several times before, that no charge is ever made for the blanket in which a soldier is buried.
§ 41. Sir B. FALLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that H. J. Kennedy, 11, Pretoria Road, Portsmouth, lost his foot in a lift accident at the Ordnance Gun Wharf, Portsmouth, twenty-one months ago, and that his weekly compensation was stopped 27th July, that he has no means of support, and that the artificial leg provided has been altered three times and is of little use; and if he will have the final compensation settled, or if Kennedy will have the option of remaining in the gun wharf?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe stoppage of this man's compensation was the result of a clerical error, and payment has been resumed. Every effort is being made to make the artificial limb comfortable and useful. The question of final settlement of compensation is under consideration. His retention at the gun wharf must depend upon the existence of suitable work—a question which cannot be determined until the man has accustomed himself to the use of an artificial limb.
§ 42. Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, considering that an officer who is in receipt of retired pay granted on account of disability owing to service in His Majesty's 1346 Forces and who accepts any Civil employment under a public Department is liable, under No. 4 of the Rules made under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, to a deduction of not less than 10 per cent. from the salary of his Civil employment, provided that his salary and retired pay together exceed £400 per annum; and, considering that officers in receipt of wound pensions are specially exempted from this deduction, the Army Council will now take the necessary steps to obtain the alteration of the Rules under Section 6 of the Act of 1887, by the addition of the words "and disability" after the word "wounds," at the end of Section 1 (a), and thus to free officers disabled in the War from the penalty now imposed upon them?
§ Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury)I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on this subject on the 1st instant. As I then explained, the rules referred to cannot be amended except by Statute.
§ Colonel YATEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question was put to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and that on account of his reply it is now put to the hon. Gentleman, from whom I get a repetition of the answer; and is there any hope of getting legislation on this matter?
§ 54. Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state on what ground the War Cabinet came to the decision that while the weekly rate of separation allowance for one motherless child should be increased by 3s. per week, the increase for the second and other motherless children in the same home should only be increased by 1s. per week per child?
§ Mr. FORSTERFrom the evidence placed before the Government it was recognised that 10s. a week was now necessary to maintain a motherless child in a home; but where more than one child was maintained, a less amount was required.
§ Mr. HOGGEIs it not a fact that the previous difference was 1s., whereas the present difference is 3s.?
§ Mr. FORSTERIn cases of necessity the Grant can be supplemented by the Special Grants Committee.
§ Colonel ASHLEYWill my right hon. Friend take steps to make that more widely known in the country? It is not at present widely known.
§ Mr. FORSTERI will consult with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions in regard to that.
§ 55. Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the dependants' allowances of Class W Reserve men who are recalled to service are calculated on the basis of the man's earnings prior to his original enlistment instead of on the basis of the man's earnings prior to recall; and, if so, if he will consider the possibility of basing the calculation upon any higher earnings during the later period?
§ Mr. FORSTERThese men remain soldiers throughout, serving on their original enlistment. They are, therefore, correctly assessed upon their contribution before enlistment. The suggestion that the Regulations should be altered to admit of a choice between contributions before enlistment and contributions while a Reservist has been carefully considered; but it is held that such preferential treatment, as compared with those who remain with the Colours, would not be justified.
§ Mr. HOGGEWhat right have the War Office to deny to the dependants of that man the same right to separation allowance as to those of a man who has not been in Class W, and who enjoys the benefit of high wages—how can they justify that?
§ Mr. FORSTERI think very much for the same reason that you do not give to the soldier who is fighting for his country the same rate of pay.
§ Mr. PENNEFATHERIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this method of assessment makes a difference of over 5s. a week to the dependants in some cases?
§ Mr. FORSTERIt may in some cases, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that here again the powers of the Special Grants Committee are designed to enable them to meet cases of hardship.
§ Sir RYLAND ADKINSBut ought it to be left to the Special Grants Committee?
§ 56. Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the War 1348 Cabinet have limited the grant of 5s. per week to the parents of apprentices who have attained twenty-one years of age, thus excluding the parents of sons whose apprenticeship has either been completed at an earlier age or would have been completed but for military service?
§ Mr. FORSTERThis question was dealt with in the recent Debates on the subject, and I fear I can add nothing to them.
§ Mr. PENNEFATHERI am not aware that any definite decision was given in the recent Debate What was the decision?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe decision, I think, is stated in the hon. Gentleman's question.
§ Mr. HOGGEIs the decision of the Government this, that they are prepared to pay a flat rate of 5s. to the mothers of apprentices of twenty-one, and that they are prepared to pay nothing to the mothers of apprentices who are nineteen and who are being killed to-day in the fighting line?
§ Mr. FORSTERAs I said in the Debate, we had to consider whether we would proceed by way of discretionary allowances which could be made applicable to each individual case or by means of a flat rate, and it was considered desirable to proceed by means of a flat rate.
§ Mr. FORSTERI have answered that. We quite recognise that a flat rate cannot avoid all cases of hardship.
§ Mr. PENNEFATHERrose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe have had two Debates on this question.
§ 57. Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that boys whose patriotic impulses led them to procure enlistment by overstating their age, and who have been discharged as under age and subsequently re-enlisted at the age of eighteen, are penalised by having their dependants' allowances calculated on the basis of boys' wages prior to the original enlistment instead of on the basis of young men's wages at the time that they became eighteen and were re-enlisted; and whether he proposes to take any action in these cases?
§ Mr. FORSTERUnder the Regulations, all these claims of boys discharged and 1349 subsequently re-enlisted are specially considered by the Appeals Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (North). I do not think these difficult cases could be in better hands.
§ 58. Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, under Regulation 7 (1) of the Special Grants Committee, by which local committees are empowered to make allowances to soldiers' wives to meet contractual obligations for the purposes of assessment in the case of voluntarily enlisted men, the prevailing wage rate on 1st January, 1916, may be taken, but that, in the case of men coming under the Military Service Act at later periods, the wages prior to enlistment form the basis of assessment, and that, as wages have risen largely since 1st January, 1916, this results in those who volunteered being placed at a pecuniary disadvantage compared to those who were called up later; and if he will consider the advisability of altering the date from 1st January, 1916, to 1st January, 1918?
§ The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge)I am aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member, and am considering the advisability of making the alteration he suggests.