HC Deb 18 June 1918 vol 107 cc164-6
30. Mr. WHYTE

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Private W. J. Harding, No. 6665 Royal Highlanders, who enlisted as a Regular on 5th May, 1897, served in South Africa and again in the present war, was discharged on 10th April, 1915, on account of chronic rheumatism, thus falling short of the necessary period of service for his long service pension by about twenty days; and whether there is any provision by which hardship of this kind can be avoided?

Mr. FORSTER

I understand that this man has been granted a pension of 4s. 8d. a week, and that although this is nominally a disability pension the element of service enters largely into the calculation.

Mr. HOGGE

Can my right hon. Friend explain the coincidence by which so many of these men are discharged a few days prior to their becoming time-expired?

Mr. FORSTER

I think it is a mere coincidence. There is no question of policy involved.

Mr. WHYTE

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who says that the period of service is taken into account, what proportion of the allowance is thus represented, because in any case the grant is small?

Mr. FORSTER

It is a very technical question. Perhaps, if my hon. Friend will speak to me privately, I may be able to satisfy him.

33 and 34. Mr. CHANCELLOR

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether a man who on re-engagement for a period and being entitled to a bounty as a condition of re-engagement is wounded and in hospital at the expiry of the period of re-engagement is liable to discharge as a time-expired soldier without bounty and without pension on account of the disability sustained, when discharge as a disabled soldier would entitle him to both; and (2) if he has reconsidered the case of the late Sergeant G. W. Scott, No. 839, 7th Battalion Middlesex Regiment, who, on 22nd February, 1914, re-engaged for two years and thereby became entitled to a bounty which he allocated to his mother; whether he was killed in action on 16th September, 1916; whether the bounty has been refused to the mother on the ground that his engagement was not completed; whether getting killed in carrying out an engagement is regarded by the War Office as failing to complete it and treated as a crime; whether the mother is penalised on that ground; and, if so, will he inform the House what he proposes to do to rectify this grievance?

Mr. FORSTER

The hon. Member would appear to be under a misapprehension. No bounty is due in respect to any engagement undertaken before the outbreak of war but only on the commencement of a further term of engagement. Sergeant Scott was serving on an engagement which did not expire till 22nd February, 1917, and bounty would only have become payable if he continued his service beyond that date. As regards the more general question, soldiers who on the completion of their engagement are only waiting till their health is sufficiently recovered to be discharged from hospital and from the Service are not regarded as entering upon a further engagement, and are not entitled to bounty.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

Is it not a fact that the time for which this man reengaged had actually expired before he was killed, that his service was compulsorily extended for another twelve months, and is being killed in the performance of duties really held to disqualify the man's mother from receiving the bounty?

Mr. FORSTER

I rather resent the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He ought to know perfectly well that the War Office has just as great an admiration for the men killed in action as anybody else. With regard to the first part of the question, under the terms of the Army Act the period of engagement of all soldiers is prolonged for a further twelve months. There is nothing exceptional about the treatment of this case.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

Had not he really fulfilled the conditions under which he reengaged, the addition being made afterwards?

Mr. FORSTER

No, Sir, the provision of the Army Act was in force before the War began. All soldiers serving under an engagement are liable under the provisions of the Army Act to serve for a full twelve months beyond the period of their engagement. Sergeant Scott was one of them. There is nothing exceptional in this case.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

And his mother is to be punished because he was killed?

Mr. FORSTER

There is no question of punishment.

43. Colonel ASHLEY

asked the Pensions Minister whether any cases have been brought to his notice where a pension granted under Article 9 of the Royal Warrant has only been issued as from the date of the application for such pensions instead of from the date from which the disability commenced; and whether, in the event of any such cases being brought to his notice, he will cause inquiries to be made, with the view to the payment of such arrears as may have accrued?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Pension under Article 9 of the Royal Warrant is issuable from the date on which it is proved that the disability due to the man's military service began, and in the event of any cases being brought to my notice in which arrears from this date have not been paid, I will cause inquiries to be made with regard to them.

Colonel ASHLEY

I will communicate with my hon. Friend.