HC Deb 17 October 1918 vol 110 cc272-6
38. Mr. HOGGE

asked the Pensions Minister whether he proposes to bring pensions to the children of widows into line with the separation allowances of children of serving men?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

The question is at present under consideration.

Mr. HOGGE

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what he means by that? Is the Ministry suggesting a change to the Treasury, and is it the view of the Ministry that the pensions payable to the children of widows should be the same as the allowances to the children of wives?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I mean exactly what I said.

Mr. HOGGE

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what he means by what he says? He says the question is under consideration. Will he tell us whether the view of the Ministry is that the pensions payable to the children of widows is to be the same as the allowance payable to the children of wives?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I have nothing to add to what I have said already.

40. Mr. NEEDHAM

asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the conditions set out in Circular 102, whilst presumably giving 7s. 6d. per week extra to the married man receiving treatment or training and living at home, limit the grant very seriously; and whether it is intended to make any alteration in Condition (c) of the circular?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

A revised Circular 102 is about to be issued, considerably modifying Condition (c) of the original circular. I may, however, remark that it will still be necessary to examine each case on its merits, with reference to the pre-war standard of living, as the extra grant is not a flat-rate addition to the ordinary allowance.

Mr. HOGGE

Is it a fact that this grant of 7s. 6d. is so hedged round with restrictions that nobody can get it?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

There have been restrictions, but the principal one is Condition (c), and that is now being removed.

42. Sir GEORGE TOULMIN

asked the Pensions Minister whether he has had brought to his notice the contrast between the means of subsistence afforded by the allowances to the wives and families of the fighting forces and the comforts available for the members of families engaged in civilian employment; whether he is aware that the disproportion is increasing; whether he recognises the effect of the contrast upon men returning after years of strenuous exertion and self-sacrifice; and whether he is prepared to recommend revised allowances which will fully compensate for the rise in the cost of living during the War?

44. Mr. PENNEFATHER

asked the Pensions Minister if he can yet state what increases are to be made in the separation allowances for the dependants of sailors and soldiers, and the date from which they will become effective?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster)

I have been asked to reply to these questions. I can add nothing to the statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir G. TOULMIN

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the dissatisfaction is most acute with the provision made in reference to cases where wives are entirely dependent upon this small allowance and are unable to work?

Mr. FORSTER

My right hon. Friend said yesterday the Cabinet had considered the question, and it was hoped their decision would be announced to-day or to-morrow.

Sir G. TOULMIN

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those wives are included?

Mr. FORSTER

I think if the hon. Gentleman will wait and see—

Mr. SUTTON

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that soldiers' wives are now organising themselves and protesting against the small pay they are receiving?

46. Mr. HOGGE

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state that all pensions for any disability in previous wars have been brought into line with the new Warrant?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the Royal Warrants dated respectively the 17th April, 1918, and the 12th September, 1918, which disclose the extent to which pensions of former wars have been brought into line with pensions of the present War.

Mr. HOGGE

Can my hon. Friend say what steps the Government are taking to make known to the men who have previously been awarded pensions that this new increase is available for them?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

It has been published abroad generally by circular and by speeches, and also it has been announced in this House.

Mr. HOGGE

How can that be when the decision was only come to a few days ago?

75. Mr. BLISS

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that discontent is caused by the recent Treasury interpretation of Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, by which a deduction of 10 per cent. is made from the pay of discharged officers employed in Government offices provided their disability pension, called retired pay, and salary together amount to £400 per annum; and whether he will have this matter reconsidered?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

The Treasury are advised that the deduction in question is necessary under the Statute.

79. Mr. BYRNE

asked the Pensions Minister when it is proposed to increase the scale of pensions to discharged soldiers and sailors and the dependants of those killed during the War?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

As I informed the hon. Member for East Edinburgh yesterday, this matter is now under consideration.

82. Mr. BLISS

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to state if it has been decided to pay gratuities to officers of the Royal Naval Division on the same lines as those payable to Army officers under Article 497 of the Army Pay Warrant?

84. Mr. PETO

asked whether on the conclusion of the War and their active service being finished, commissioned officers of the military forces will be entitled to 124 days' pay for the first year of service or part of the year and 62 days' pay for each subsequent year of service or any part of a year; whether similar provision is made for commissioned officers of the Royal Naval Reserve Forces; and, if hot, whether, in consideration of their services during the War, he will favourably consider similar provision being made in their case?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)

The question of extending to temporary naval officers the payment of a gratuity similar to that payable to temporary Army officers is one concerning which we have been in communication with the Treasury for some considerable time past. I am not in a position to announce a decision.

Mr. PETO

May I ask if the Admiralty are in favour of claims being put forward for no distinction in treatment between the Royal Naval Reserve and the officers temporarily engaged in other parts of the Service?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I should hesitate to prejudice in advance the view which the Treasury might take.