§ 6. Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Minister of Pensions the number of widows whose husbands received marriage allowance from the War Office who have been refused a pension.
§ The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley)If, as I assume, my hon. Friend has in mind cases in which death is accepted as having been due to war service, the position to which he refers could only arise if the husband had been an officer in receipt of marriage allowance on the ground that he was providing for his wife's maintenance, yet in fact had not been doing so. I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to distinguish these cases but they must be very few.
§ 7. Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases in which a pension has been refused to a widow on the ground that during her husband's life she had not obtained a maintenance or separation order against him.
§ Sir W. WomersleyPension is refused on the ground of separation only where no loss of support has occurred, namely in cases in which the husband was not contributing to a reasonable extent to his wife's support, or she was not entitled to receive payment under a maintenance or separation order, or she had not taken reasonable steps to obtain payment under such an order. It is not possible, without a disproportionate expenditure of labour, to state the number of cases in which pension has been refused on these grounds for the whole period of the war, but for the three months ended the 1st July, 1944, it was 60.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerIs it not the case that, under the new reconciliation procedure, in the Army Council Instruction, a lot of wives who have been deserted by their husbands delay taking police court proceedings, and so lose their right to pension? Will he not consider amending the Regulations so that wives, whose husbands were under a legal liability to maintain them, should receive widows' pensions?
§ Sir W. WomersleyI am always prepared to reconsider any matter where I think it would be of advantage to the persons applying for pension.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerIn view of the usual nature of this reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
8. Miss Wardasked the Minister of Pensions whether the provisions of the schemes administered by him for the benefit of Service personnel, covers volunteers in voluntary organisations, serving for the benefit of the Services in all theatres of war.
§ Sir W. WomersleyNo, Sir. The position is that personnel of voluntary organisations working for and with His Majesty's Forces in all theatres of war are covered by the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme in respect of war injuries, provided that they are persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. The question of cover against injuries, etc., which are not war injuries is one for the organisation concerned.
§ Sir W. WomersleyIt all depends upon the definition of war injury.
Miss WardIn view of the monstrous conditions which apply to these people, will not my right hon. Friend reconsider the whole matter?
§ Sir W. WomersleyMy answer is quite clear. If the condition is not covered by my scheme, it is covered by the organisations themselves, with their own arrangements. I have made inquiries and I find that those arrangements are very good indeed.
§ 9. Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that cases to go before the independent appeals tribunal are being held up and considerable time elapses before they are heard; and will he make a statement on the position.
§ Sir W. WomersleyThe decision of the Government to set up only a limited number of tribunals was influenced by the man-power situation in my Department and generally. It was not anticipated that the full volume of appeals could be passed to the tribunals immediately and some 322 delay is and must continue to be inevitable under present conditions. However, a system of priority for the more urgent cases has been adopted and I am passing appeals to the tribunals as quickly as the situation in my Department will allow. Appeals are settled within an average period of eight weeks after being received by the Tribunal. This period covers the appropriate procedure for hearing and allows for the necessary accumulation of cases at the various centres visited by tribunals.
§ Mr. TinkerI realise the difficulty, but could not the right hon. Gentleman notify the applicant when the period has elapsed, and when he has to come before the tribunal? After waiting, say, two or three months, the applicant begins to think the case will not come on. Then he comes to his Member of Parliament to find out what has happened. If the right hon. Gentleman could do what I suggest he would relieve the tension somewhat.
§ Sir W. WomersleyI am very hopeful that so long a period as two or three months will not elapse. We are doing our level best to bring it down.
§ Mr. TinkerWhat about the cases in which it is as long as that?
§ Sir W. WomersleyIt only means duplication of work in my Department. I shall have to take people off the work of preparing cases for the tribunals in order to put them on to notification.
§ Mr. PetherickWhere a man has been kept waiting for a very long time, as in one case in my constituency, cannot the right hon. Gentleman instruct his Department to give the man a reason, and an approximate idea of when the appeal is to be heard?