§ 12. Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Pensions why a pension has been refused to Mr. F. J. Green, of 78, Clyde Crescent, Cheltenham, who enjoyed perfect health before he joined the Army as a Territorial at the outbreak of war, graded A, was at Dunkirk, was discharged on 17th May, 1944, suffering from chronic inflammation of the bronchus and is now totally incapacitated and unable to work; and, as he and his wife, who has had to give up her employment to look after him and their sick child, are without any means 328 of support, will he make an adequate allowance till the application for a pension has been reconsidered.
§ The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley)I regret to have to state that the disability in this case is cancer of the bronchus. I am unable to accept the condition as due to service. As I have already explained to the hon. Member, the temporary treatment allowances have been reinstated.
§ Mr. LipsonWhile thanking my right hon. Friend for the action he has taken, may I ask him to consider that this man of 36 served 12 years as a Territorial before the war and has had a breakdown in health and is suffering from cancer? In those circumstances does not the Minister think that the man should be eligible for pension; and does he think that 30s. a week for a maximum of six months, is enough to keep this man, his wife and child, after his service to the country?
§ Sir W. WomersleyIn reply to the latter part of the question, I do not think so, and I am, as my hon. Friend knows, making arangements for him to get other assistance. In regard to the other part of the question, it is a definitely laid down medical opinion that cancer is not due to service. These cases have been taken to the tribunals and the same decision has been arrived at there.
§ Mr. GallacherIn view of the many cases of terrible hardship affecting men discharged from the Army on medical grounds, would the Minister not consider getting a change in the Royal Warrant, so that allowance may be made for these cases where there is serious hardship?
§ Sir W. WomersleyI can assure my hon. Friend that, where these cases are brought to my notice, I find ways of assisting them.
§ Mr. LipsonOn a point of Order. In order that hon. Members may have an opportunity of discussing this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment.
§ 13 and 14. Lady Apsleyasked the Minister of Pensions, (1) how many of the mothers in receipt of pensions in respect of a son or daughter who has died as a result of war service were in receipt of a dependant's allowance to which the son or daughter 329 had been making a contributory allotment from his or her pay; and
(2) how many of the cases in which parents have been refused pensions on the grounds of insufficient need, the applicants were in receipt of a dependant's allowance to which the son or daughter who has died on war service was making a contributory allotment.
§ Sir W. WomersleyI regret that the detailed information asked for is not available, and could not be furnished without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. It may be said, however, that pension has been refused in only a negligible number of cases in which a dependant's allowance had previously been in issue.
§ Lady ApsleyIs my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling that exists in the country that, in these cases where an allotment has been made and the son or daughter is killed, the allotment which they formerly made to their parents should be continued by the State?
§ Sir W. WomersleyI have already said that it is only in a negligible number of cases that has been found.
§ Mr. DribergWhy not pay them if the number is negligible?
§ Sir W. WomersleyBecause it is not in accordance with the regulations approved by this House.
§ Mr. Tom BrownDid not the serving soldier make the allotment on the distinct understanding that, if anything happened to him, pension would be paid to his parents?
§ Sir W. WomersleyNothing of the kind.
§ 15. Mr. F. Andersonasked the Minister of Pensions if he will issue, at a very early date, a consolidated Royal Warrant covering all ranks in the services and embodying all the provisions now operative, thus avoiding the necessity of referring to sections of various Royal Warrants, some 20 years old, and so assist the members of His Majesty's forces and the general public to understand their rights under the provisions of the Royal Warrant.
§ Sir W. WomersleyThe Royal Warrant of the 4th December, 1943, is a consolidat- 330 ing Royal Warrant covering all ranks of both sexes in the military forces in the present war. The Order in Council for members of the naval forces and the Order by His Majesty for members of the air forces are similarly comprehensive. No further consolidation is possible but if my hon. Friend has any particular point, in mind I will look into it.
§ Mr. AndersonHow is it, when this is, a consolidated Warrant, that reference has to be made to nine or a) different Warrants in order to know exactly what a paragraph means?
§ Sir W. WomersleyIntroducing a new Royal Warrant, I take the greatest care to avoid any reference to any other Royal Warrant, and try to bring everything up to date as far as I can. It was absolutely impossible to refrain from referring, in one or two instances, to previous Warrants, but, if my hon. Friend will buy the sixpenny edition, explaining the whole provisions of this and other Warrants, he will get all the information he wants.
§ Mr. AndersonIs the Minister aware that I have got that edition; and does he think it should be left to the British Legion to make clear the position of ex-Service men? Why should it not be easily available, from the official standpoint, to every man in the country?
§ Sir W. WomersleyI am very well aware that, in dealing with a document like a Royal Warrant, with the greatest desire in the World to be clear and plain, language is bound to be used which is not understandable by the ordinary person, and, as the British Legion approached me and said they desired to issue that report, in the compiling of which I gave them assistance, I thought it would be good enough and that they should have the honour of publishing it.
§ Mr. SilvermanIf the documents on which the law is administered and which are issued by the Ministry of Pensions are so framed that they cannot be understood by the claimants for pension, without an interpretative document, would it not be very much better that the Ministry should issue its own interpretative document?
§ Sir W. WomersleyIt is no good having two bites at a cherry. The offer was made and I accepted it and I think I did the right thing.
§ Mr. SilvermanIf it is no use having two bites at a cherry, and if the Minister thinks that this one bite should go to the British Legion, is he prepared to hand over the whole administration of his Department to that body?
§ Sir W. WomersleyMy hon. Friend is talking sheer nonsense.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Tinker.
§ Mr. AndersonShould it not be the object of the Minister's office to see that——
§ Mr. SpeakerI have called the next Question.
§ Sir W. WomersleyIf the hon. Member has read the Royal Warrant, and there is any point which wants explaining, either my private secretary or I will be glad to explain it.
§ 18. Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Pensions if he has considered the resolution from the District Council of Atherton, in Leigh constituency, urging that a flat rate pension be given to parents who lose either daughter or son while serving in His Majesty's forces, irrespective of means test; and what reply he has made.
§ Sir W. WomersleyThis resolution was dated 16th June and received in my Department on 19th June. An early reply will be sent to the council.
§ Mr. Tom BrownIs the Minister aware that a tremendous number of local authorities have sent similar resolutions to other Members of Parliament, and will he not do something in connection with these cases?
§ Sir W. WomersleyI can only deal with those resolutions which are sent to myself.
§ Mr. TinkerCould the Minister tell us what kind of a reply he has sent—whether favourable or otherwise?
§ Sir W. WomersleyNo, Sir, that would not be courteous to the urban district council of the hon. Member's constituency, and he had better be a little bit careful.