HC Deb 18 July 1918 vol 108 cc1230-1
56. Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the revision of the scales of separation allowances paid to soldiers' families and dependants?

Mr. BONAR LAW

As I stated yesterday, I hope that the decision of the Government will be announced next week.

Mr. HOGGE

Will it be before the Recess?

Mr. BONAR LAW

Yes. I hope so.

67. Mr. SNOWDEN

asked the Pensions Minister why the pension awarded to the mother of Private J. Crossen, No. 428, Lanarkshire Yeomanry, killed on 27th December, 1915, which was paid to his mother up to the date of her death on the 29th March last, and also the pension awarded to the mother on account of her second son, Private Peter Crossen, No. 60865, 92nd Machine Gun Corps, killed July, 1917, was stopped in January, 1918, and no further payment paid; why on the death of the mother these pensions were not renewed to the soldiers' sister who took the mother's place in the charge of four children of school age; and will he, in view of the circumstances of the family, have the matter settled at once?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen)

Mrs. Crossen received the maximum pension of 15s. weekly admissible for one parent up to her death, less a deduction of 1s. 6d. weekly, which was being made in adjustment of the gratuity paid under previous Regulations. Under the Royal Warrant the pension granted to a parent is only transferable to a surviving parent, and when there is no surviving parent a further grant can only be given in very exceptional circumstances. In this case, however, it has been decided to grant a pension of 13s. 9d. a week to the sister—the maximum rate under Article 22 of the Warrant.

68. Mr. SNOWDEN

asked the Pensions Minister why no pension has been given to William Parker, No. 22959, late 10th Scottish Rifles, who, while on duty in the trenches on 27th June, 1917, was shot through the left foot by a comrade, seeing that Parker disclaims any knowledge of alleged neglect and that he is at present enduring hard circumstances through disablement; and will he have the case immediately reconsidered?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

The Court of Inquiry found in this case that the wound which caused William Parker's discharge from the Service was inflicted by himself, when he was cleaning his rifle. The claim to pension under the Royal Warrant was considered and rejected, but according to the usual practice in these cases the matter is now being referred to the War Office for the opinion of the Director of Personal Services as to whether Parker should be recommended for the grant of pension at a reduced rate.