§ 22. Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the practice of the War Office is to stop separation allowances for wives and children in the cases of soldiers who, being unfit for further active service, are sent to work on the land; and whether separation allowances will be continued in cases in which the wages given to the soldier on the land are less than the combined amount formerly received of pay, value of rations, and separation allowances?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster)Separation allowance is only stopped when the soldier is living at home.
28. Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, considering that the London allowance was designed to enable those who lived in London to meet the extra cost of living involved by residence there, and that such allowance is withdrawn on removal from the London area, the allowance is claimable by the wives of soldiers who find it necessary to remove from the country to London and thereby have to bear these extra costs; if not, whether he will explain why this allowance should be refused; and whether he will take steps to have such alterations made in order that all dependants living in the London area should receive similar treatment?
§ Mr. FORSTERI am afraid that I can find no ground for altering the present practice, which has been in force all through the War.
Sir F. HALLDoes the right hon. Gentleman think it is fair or equitable that there should be two rates in the London area?
§ Mr. FORSTERAs I have already, I think, informed my hon. and gallant Friend, the separation allowance in London is a continuation of the old allowance given to soldiers whose permanent homes were in London before the War; it was given mainly because rents in London were higher than elsewhere. There has been no general increase.
Sir F. HALLSince it is admittedly owing to the increase of the rents in the London area, and that those who remove from London to the country lose—and rightly lose—the allowance, should not the tight hon. Gentleman consider the question as to whether or not those who find it necessary to remove from the country to London should receive the 3s. 6d.?
§ Mr. FORSTERNo; I think not. It is the case where a man has a permanent home here. But I do not think it is desirable to encourage a general incursion into London. Any case of hardship, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, can be met by application to the local war pensions committee.
Colonel THORNEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the injustice, say, in the case of two women living side by side, the one a Londoner in receipt of the 3s. 6d. and the other, having had to remove from the country, being deprived of the 3s. 6d.—is not that financial inequality?
§ Mr. FORSTERWell, there is inequality—
§ 31. Mr. CROOKSasked whether the proposed increases in the scale of separation allowances will apply in the case of soldiers drawing family allowance whose families are accommodated in public quarters and in the case of soldiers drawing family allowance whose families are not so accommodated?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe answer on both points is in the affirmative.
§ 33. Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to the case of William Scott, son of Alexander Scott, of 25, Church Street, Johnstone, who voluntarily enlisted in 1915 when he was an apprentice fitter and his wages were 8s. per week, but after nine months' training was sent back to his trade, finished his time, and worked as a journeyman for twelve months at £4 a week wages, and was afterwards called up and transferred to a Highland regiment to act as fitter in a battery of the Royal Field Artillery; if he is aware that this soldier allots his mother 6d. a day; and if, having regard to the circumstances mentioned, the dependent mother is entitled to the full separation allowance?
§ Mr. FORSTERInquiry will be made, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.