§ Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War on what grounds Martin M'Hugh, of Beagh, Dromahair, county Leitrim, has been deprived of dependant's allowance out of his son, Private Pat M'Hugh, No. 22506, 6th Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers, B Company, Field Force, Salonika, notwithstanding the fact that the usual amount of 3s. 6d. has been deducted from his son's pay?
§ Mr. FORSTERInquiries will be made, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.
§ Mr. FARRELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the reason for the refusal of the War Office to pay separation allowance to Mrs. M. A. Lyttle, Drumlish, county Long ford, in respect of her son, Private J. Lyttle, No. 11567, Irish Guards; and whether he is aware that this boy was employed by Mr. Thomas Kiernan, county clerk of Drumlish, before his enlistment at a salary of £12 a year, all of which he gave his mother?
§ Mr. FORSTERThe claim for separation allowance was refused because prior dependence on the soldier could not be established. The statement as to contribution is not borne out by the soldier's own statement. Mrs. Lyttle was advised of her right to appeal last November, but no appeal has been received.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Pensions Minister whether there is any age limit below which pensions are not granted; and whether a boy who enlisted under the age of fifteen and was discharged under the age of seventeen, after being wounded in action, would be entitled to a disability pension on the ordinary scale?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENAs far as disablement pensions under the new Warrant are concerned, the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative.
Mr. SCOTTasked, with regard to the recently announced grant of supplementary allowances for wives who are physically unfit for work, under Statutory Committee Regulations, Part II., No. 7 (1) (d) (amended), whether a wife who is unfit 1932W for work owing to her approaching confinement is eligible for such supplementary allowance?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThe reply is in the affirmative.
§ Mr. JOWETTasked the Pensions Minister, concerning the case of ex-Private Harry Jackson, No. 10573, 3rd Duke of Wellington's West Riding Regiment, who enlisted in September, 1914, was sent to France in December, 1914, was gassed on Hill 60 in June, 1915, and subsequently, after repeated lapses into a state of mental deficiency, was finally discharged into Menston Asylum on 16th December last; whether he is aware that Private Jackson's wife is only in receipt of 10s. per week for herself and a baby nine months old, after the guardians had deducted 12s. from her husband's pension for his maintenance; if he will state the amount of the pension ex-Private Jackson will be entitled to under the new Royal Warrant; whether the amount will be subject to deduction by the guardians; and, if so, what will be the net weekly sum due to her under the Warrant?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the question, except that Mrs. Jackson is in receipt of 12s. weekly in respect of the balance of her husband's pension. Under the draft Royal Warrant such a case would be dealt with by the grant of an allowance under Article 6, and the wife would, during the period of her husband's detention in an asylum, receive an amount not less than the pension and. allowance for children to which she would have been entitled had she been a widow. In this case the allowance would be 18s. 9d. weekly.