§ Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many widows and old people unable to earn anything for themselves, who before their sons entered the Army were dependent on their earnings for subsistence, find the sum now allowed them as separation allowance inadequate to maintain life; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the question with a view to increasing the sum allowed by the State?
§ Mr. FORSTERI can assure my Noble Friend that this has not been overlooked, but I cannot do more at present than refer him to my reply to the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow on the 2nd November.
§ Mr. YEOasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Martin Allen, a 434W soldier discharged as no longer fit for war service after serving one year and 201 days with the Colours, who was in France from 4th January, 1915, to 17th January, 1916, and whose certificate of discharge states he has done his duty well; is he aware that Allen has a wife and seven children whose ages range from fifteen years to two years, and has been compelled to apply for and been granted outdoor relief; and is he aware that the Rochdale Guardians passed a resolution that the attention of the War Office should be drawn to the case of Thomas Martin Allen, a permanently disabled discharged soldier with a pension of 4s. 8d. per week, who has been compelled to apply to this board for relief, and that this board desired to urge upon the War Office the desirability of immediate reform, in the scale of pensions with a view to making them sufficiently adequate to save permanently disabled soldiers and sailors from pauperism?
§ Mr. FORSTERInquiries are being made, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that wives' and dependants' separation allowances are frequently reduced, the only explanation offered being a mere statement that the reduction has been made to refund an over-issue; whether he is aware that many of the recipients are not aware of any over-issue having occurred; and whether he will try to secure that in such cases when a reduction is made the nature of the over-issue will be explained?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe intention of the Regulations is that explanation shall be made in such cases, but if the hon. Member will send me particulars of any cases of failure, I will endeavour to secure any necessary improvement.
§ Mr. BILLINGasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the wife of a sailor gets a smaller separation allowance than the wife of a soldier; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to remove this grievance?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I do not think the term "grievance" can be properly applied. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the White Paper issued on 22nd September, 1914, which describes fully the reasons why it has been deemed 435W equitable that the scale of separation -allowances for the wife and children of the seaman should differ from that adopted for the wife and children of the soldier.
Mr. BARLOWasked the Secretary of State for War, with regard to the case of Private W. Spencer, No. 1258, 1st Battalion Manchester Regiment, whether the mother of this soldier, who is now reported missing, is only entitled to the usual allowance for thirty weeks after he is notified as missing; and whether, at the end of thirty weeks, she can receive no more than 4s. 6d. a week pension?
§ Mr. FORSTER. As regards the allowance, the reply is in the affirmative. I am inquiring into the pension, and will let the hon. Member know the result.
Mr. BARLOWasked the Secretary of State for War, with regard to the case of Sergeant Blakeley, No. 6982, of the 8th Lancashire Fusiliers, transferred on 4th August, 1916, to the Border Regiment, whether he is aware that since mobilisation Blakeley has had 1s. 6d. stopped out of his pay, and his wife has received only 1s. 4d. of this, and that, in spite of repeated applications, the Territorial authorities has ignored her claim to the additional 2d. a day, amounting now to about £3 8s.; and will he say by what authority this has been done?
§ Mr. FORSTERInquiry is being made, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result.
Mr. BARLOWasked the Secretary of State for War, with regard to the case of Private J. Price, No. 10472, 15th Lancashire Fusiliers, of 24, North James Henry Street, Salford, whether ho is aware that on coming out of hospital at the end of October last Price was informed by the paymaster that he was £6 13s. 2d. in credit; that £4 was then sent to the soldier to Chapel Street, Leigh, instead of Chapel Street, Salford; and, seeing that on the error being pointed out the soldier was informed that he was only £3 15s. in credit, he will say who is responsible for these mistakes and what has become of the difference, namely, £2 18s. 2d.?
§ Mr. FORSTERInquiries into this case are being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result.
§ Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position 436W to state what action the Government intends to take about increasing the amount of separation allowance?
§ Mr. FORSTERNo decision has yet been reached
§ Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the amount of separation allowance which is to be paid to Mrs. Manus O'Donnell, mother of Private John Gallagher, No. 412, military headquarters picket, Arklow; and if he will explain the delay in dealing with the claim, seeing that this soldier enlisted as long ago as the 5th May, 1915?
§ Mr. FORSTERInquiries will be made and my hon. Friend informed of the result in due course.