§ 29. Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister whether members of women's corps wounded in action while in the field or in the execution of their duty in War areas are entitled to the same compensation as men, and, if not, will he state the reason?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin)The Noble Lord no doubt refers to members of the Q.M.A.A.C., W.R.N.S., and W.R.A.F. injured in the War areas. The Regulation of these corps provide compensation not less generous than that provided under the Injuries in War Acts for male employés of the War Department injured in similar circumstances.
§ Captain LOSEBYIs the hon. Gentlemen aware that many of these delicate and disabled women shrink from the publicity of the course to which they are forced, and will he consider the advisability of placing them on exactly the same conditions as men wounded under the same circumstances?
§ Mr. BALDWINThey do enjoy exactly the same conditions as men who are non-combatants.
§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKWill the hon. Gentleman explain on what principles of justice the wound pension and gratuity is refused to women and granted to men?
§ Mr. BALDWINAll the corps concerned are in exactly the same category as those in the non-combatant corps. They receive exactly the same terms as the men do who undergo similar risk in corps such as the labourers of contractors in and behind the lines. If this particular corps was classified as combatant it would be perfectly impossible to draw the line between what has hitherto been regarded as combatant corps and anyone doing work in any capacity in and behind the line.
§ Viscount CURZONMay I ask whether a woman who loses a leg as the result of shell fire in France receives the same compensation as a private in a labour corps wounded under similar circumstances?
§ Mr. BALDWINNo. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking!"] She gets exactly the same compensation as is given to a contractor's labourer.
§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKIs an Army nurse in the same category as a contractor's labourer?