HC Deb 01 July 1941 vol 372 cc1207-9
40. Captain Thurtle

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that existing regulations covering pensions in respect of dependants of civilians killed by enemy action do not provide for pensions for unmarried wives of civilians killed by such action, even when the unmarried union has lasted for as long as 30 years; that in this respect the un-married dependant of a civilian killed by enemy action is in an inferior position to that of an unmarried dependant of a member of one of the armed forces, since, in the latter case, a pension is payable; and whether he will take steps to bring this anomaly to an end?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley)

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Hollins) on 27th February last. As regards their form, the benefits of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme are modelled to some extent upon the compensation provided for the fighting forces, but, as regards the circumstances in which these benefits may be paid, the Civilians Scheme has been designed to conform in general principle with other schemes for the civilian population, for example, National Health Insurance, Contributory Pensions, and Workmen's Compensation.

Captain Thurtle

Is it not a fact that general Government policy is to compensate the dependants of civilian killed by enemy action on the same lines as the dependants of Service men who are killed by enemy action, and in these circumstances how can the Minister justify an anomaly of this kind? Is it not a fact that a free union of 30 years is worth many certificates of marriage?

Sir W. Womersley

It is a fact that we have taken into consideration conditions and terms in relation to Service pensions but more particularly, in the Civilians Scheme, to those schemes which apply to the civilian population, and particularly, in this case, to the Workmen's Compensation Act, because the Government have taken away the right of workpeople to sue their employers under that Act for injuries due to enemy action, and we have had to put something in the place of that. This is what we have done.

Mr. Silverman

Is the State to take no responsibility for the dependants of a man at all?

Sir W. Womersley

Dependent children are provided for.

Mr. Silverman

The woman would be a dependant, would she not?