62. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Pensions why a pensioner of the last war, promoted after first removal from duty on account of a disability for which pension was subsequently awarded, is granted a lower pension than would have been the case if his disablement had been sustained in the present war; and if he will take steps to bring the 1919 Royal Warrant into line with the 1943 Warrant.
§ Sir W. WomersleySubstantive advancement after removal from duty counts for pension purposes in Great War cases as in present war cases. The present war code is more beneficial in the special case where, broadly speaking, a higher paid acting rank is held on removal from duty for aggravation of a condition for which there had been a previous removal. I cannot, however, undertake to bring the Great War instruments into line in every detail with those for present war cases.
§ Sir I. FraserIf the present code is more beneficial in this matter, as the Minister 2224 says, and, having regard to the fact that it is a real hardship for a man to get a pension below the rank he had previously held, will he assimilate conditions for the two wars?
§ Sir W. WomersleyI am prepared to look into any case where hardship can be proved, but it is not worth while going through the process of issuing an amending Warrant for a particular case.
§ Sir I. FraserPerhaps my right hon. Friend will include it in a new Warrant, not necessarily a special Warrant, as it is a small matter.
§ Sir W. WomersleyIf my hon. and gallant Friend will bring a case of alleged hardship, I will certainly look into it and consider the matter.
§ 63. Mr. Moelwyn Hughesasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the Civilian Injuries Scheme makes no provision for the dependants of an injured civilian who are completely dependent by reason of ill-health; and whether he proposes to remedy this defect.
§ Sir W. WomersleyUnder the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme an injured civilian receives, in addition to his own pension, allowances for a wife to whom he was married at the time of his injury and for any eligible children. His position in this respect is broadly comparable with that of disabled service pensioners and I do not feel justified in making provision for the grant of additional allowances in respect of other categories of dependants.
§ Mr. HughesIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if a family have been maintaining a sick child of 17 or 18, and find that the breadwinner is incapacitated, they get nothing at all in respect of that child, and it means that it has to be sent to an institution?
§ Sir W. WomersleyI am very much puzzled as to what the hon. and learned Member really means, and I should be very glad if he will talk to me about the case he has in mind.
64. Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Minister of Pensions will he seek powers to pay wounds or disability pensions to disabled men retained in His Majesty's Forces and bring them into line with re-engaged war disability pensioners.
§ Sir W. WomersleyIt is a long established principle that a war disability pension is not payable before the termination of the member's period of full paid service. This, in my view, is the proper and, indeed, the only practicable, arrangement. An existing pensioner who re-enlists is specially treated on the grounds that he enters upon a new engagement and that it is reasonable that he should continue to draw any disability pension awarded to him in respect of a previous completed engagement.