§ 33. Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Pensions whether the first £1 of earnings, which is ignored in the case of the wife of a serving man for the purpose of calculating any war-service grant that may be due, also applies in the case of a widowed mother who was wholly dependent upon her serving son?
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling)This matter has been carefully considered, but I am unable to add anything to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to a similar Question on 10th December last.
§ Mr. EdwardsIs not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the announcement was made that the first £1 of earnings for the purpose of calculating War Service Grant would be disregarded in the case of wives of serving men? Why cannot a dependent mother have the same disregard?
§ Mr. PalingThe reply was given in the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. EdwardsWill the Parliamentary Secretary try and give a reply to the question as to the reasons the Government have for refusing to treat a widowed dependent mother the same as the wife of a serving man?
§ Mr. PalingI had better read the main portion of the reply:
The disregard of the first 15s. or 20s. of wives for War Service Grants purposes was approved in order to provide a special inducement to the wives of serving men to undertake paid employment assisting the war effort The information at present at my disposal does not lead me to think that the present rule operates to deter dependants other than wives from accepting employment assisting the war effort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1942, col. 1707, Vol. 385.]
§ Mr. EdwardsDoes not the same consideration apply to wholly dependent mothers? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
§ 34. Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Lawrence, of 23, Northcroft Road, West Ewell, who, although her husband was granted a 100. per cent. disability pension on the grounds that his disability was due to war service, from the effects of which disability he subsequently died, has been refused a pension on the grounds that her husband's disability should never have been accepted as due to service, although it was, in fact, so accepted?
§ The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley)Yes, Sir. As I have explained to my hon. and gallant Friend, Mrs. Lawrence appealed against the Ministry's decision to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, whose decision is final by statute, and her appeal was disallowed.
§ Sir A. SouthbyCutting out all the legal aspects of the case, does it not remain the fact that while this woman's husband was alive he was paid 100 per cent. disability pension on the ground that his disability was due to his service, and that he died of that disability? Does it not remain a fact that the woman, who has been deprived of her husband and breadwinner, is being paid nothing at all?
§ Sir W. WomersleyShe is in receipt of a contributory pension, and that is not a question of getting nothing at all. I have no power to intervene where the appeals tribunal have given a decision.
§ Sir A. SouthbyIf the Minister's doctors made a mistake in the first place, should he not stand by the opinion they then gave?
§ Sir W. WomersleyPerhaps the hon. and gallant Member can explain how I can do it.
§ Mr. GallacherSurely he can do it. There are too many of these cases.
§ 35. Captain C. S. Taylorasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider his decision not to award a pension to the widow of Sidney J. Thompson, late 1515801.A.C.1, Royal Air Force, in view of the fact that there was no post-mortem?
§ Sir W. WomersleyAs the hon. and gallant Member will recollect, I gave him the facts of this case by letter on 1st January. I am advised that the circumstances of Mr. Thompson's death show it to have been due to a common form of cardio-vascular disease which is not adversely affected by such conditions of service as were experienced by Mr. Thompson. I regret that I am consequently unable to grant Mrs. Thompson a war pension.
§ Captain TaylorIs my right hon. Friend aware that this man was subjected to some strenuous treatment in Scotland before he died, and is he aware that this case is causing great dissatisfaction among very reputable people in my constituency?
§ Sir W. WomersleyI think I had better invite the hon. and gallant Member to come to my room after Questions and see the full evidence. I am sure that he will then have quite a different opinion about this case.
36. Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Pensions the number of fatal accidents to members of the Armed Forces while not actually on duty and the number of pensions granted in these circumstances?
§ Sir W. WomersleyI regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available and could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.
Mr. DavidsonIn view of the fact that according to Members of the House there have been a considerable number of fatal 1040 accidents to men in the Forces and that, despite widespread opinion, their dependants are being refused any pensions, will the right hon. Gentleman immediately scrutinise the position and make a statement to the House?
§ Sir W. WomersleyThe hon. Member is very much out of date. If he kept in close touch with Parliamentary proceedings, he would know that I have altered considerably the conditions applying to these cases. I am always prepared to consider any aspect of pension cases if I think it can be done with justice to the men concerned and to the taxpayers.
§ Mr. BurkeIs it not a fact that men in uniform who are injured in an accident when being taken to different parts of the country do not get any pension because at the moment they were not actually on active service?
§ Sir W. WomersleyI am afraid the hon. Gentleman is also a little out of date. If he would look up particulars of these accident cases, he would come to a better understanding of them.
§ Mr. BurkeIf I am out of date, will the right hon. Gentleman alter the decision in a case which I gave him last week and which was turned down?
§ 37. Mr. Messerasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered the case of a war widow, whose name and address have been sent to him, who is in receipt of 15s. 1d. per week, public assistance, from the Middlesex County Council; and whether, in view of the number of cases of Service widows seeking public assistance, he will review Service widows' pensions?
§ Sir W. WomersleyThe widow in question is in receipt of a pension, with allowances for her two children, amounting to £2 1s. 6d. a week, which is in accordance with the scales laid down in the Royal Warrant. I am not aware that any appreciable number of war widows are receiving public assistance, and I regret that I cannot undertake to review the rates of pension.
§ Mr. MesserDoes not the Minister consider it deplorable that the widow of a man who has given his life for the country should have to seek public assistance?
§ Sir W. WomersleyThe hon. Member did me the honour of sending a letter at 1041 the same time as he put down the Question giving me details of this case. He must admit that they are exceptional. I am prepared to discuss this matter with him after Questions.
§ Mr. MesserWill the Minister take it from me as a member of the public assistance committee that this is by no means an exceptional case?
§ Sir W. WomersleyWill the hon. Member bring me other cases? He asked me a Question on this subject about six months ago, and I have been waiting for the cases, but they have not come along.
Miss RathboneWill the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from public assistance authorities as to how many war widows are receiving assistance?
§ Captain TaylorMay I ask whether we have to go along in a bunch to my right hon. Friend's room?
§ 38. Mr. W. H. Greenasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the extension of compensation for injuries received during fire duties by youths and girls between 16 to 18 years of age who are voluntarily carrying out fire-guard duties?
§ Sir W. WomersleyYouths and girls of the age of 16 or 17 years who are properly enrolled for fire-guard duties are eligible for compensation under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme if they sustain injuries arising out of and in the course of their duties.