HC Deb 31 October 1918 vol 110 cc1632-4W
Mr. F. MEEHAN

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Private James Keaney, No. 16821, 5th Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers, made an allowance of 3s. 6d. per week to his father when going on active service in July, 1915, and that no dependant's allowance was granted to his father when calculating the amount due, owing to Private Keaney being transferred from the 8th Battalion to the 5th Battalion while serving at the Dardanelles and Salonika for the term due from July, 1915, to March, 1916; and whether the amount of arrears will now be paid?

Mr. FORSTER

This case was fully investigated over a year ago, and I would refer the hon. Member to the letter addressed to him on the 7th September, 1917, by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. No arrears are due for the period July, 1915, to March, 1916.

Mr. MEEHAN

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the case of Private C. Carroll, No. 7487, signaller, Connaught Rangers, who allowed £5 out of his deferred pay to be forwarded to his wife from the Egyptian Expeditionary Force and the same has not been received by her or otherwise accounted for; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into this case?

Mr. FORSTER

I would refer the hon. Member to my letter sent to him of the 29th instant, which shows the result of the inquiries made into this case.

Mr. HOHLER

asked the Pensions Minister whether he has yet taken steps to deal with the cases of men of His Majesty's Navy who are entitled to their long-service pensions and also to a disability pension for war injuries; whether he is aware that F. W. Fryman, C.G.R.A. 7769, is entitled to a long-service pension amounting in all to 25s. 1d.; that for injuries received in the War his disability pension has been assessed at 8s. 3d. together with 33s. 4d. a week, yet he only receives 31s. 6d. a week, but that his Department has stated that the full amount of service pension is not at present payable concurrently with the disablement pension; that his life pension of 22s. 9d. a week has been increased to 25s. 1d. a week in respect of his mobilised service, and that he will revert to this pension when his disablement ceases; and if he will take steps to end this state of affairs and see that the men are paid both pensions in full with all arrears that have accrued?

Mr. HODGE

The facts of the particular case are correctly stated. In naval cases long-service pensions cannot be drawn concurrently with disablement pensions, but the latter carry allowances for service. In the result, seamen with from six to twenty-one years' service are treated more favourably than if they came under the Soldiers' Warrants, but with twenty-two years' service or more they suffer some loss. The question of revising the present arrangements with regard to long-service pensions is now under consideration by the Admiralty, and it is hoped that this grievance will shortly be removed.

Mr. PENNEFATHER

asked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that the rate of pension to childless widows is still inadequate; and, if so, when and by how much it will be increased?

Mr. HODGE

This matter is under consideration.

Mr. WATT

asked the Pensions Minister whether any provision is being made by his Department for discharged soldiers who, by reason of their being called to the Colours, have entirely lost their former businesses, but who are now left with the debts of these businesses, such as moneys borrowed to carry them on, or payments due to former partners, or to the relatives of former partners?

Mr. HODGE

I am now conferring with other Departments on this matter, which affects not only the disabled man, but all serving soldiers who were formerly in business.

Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD

asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that, according to a ruling issued by the county of Devon war pensions local committee, the amount of a husband's voluntary allotment is taken into consideration in assessing the wife's income in connection with any claim she may make for a supplementary grant under the civil liabilities scheme; whether this is strictly in accord with the spirit of the Regulations, inasmuch as it inflicts hardship on those whose allotments are made public as compared with those who make allowances to their wives privately; and whether he proposes to take any action to remedy this matter?

Mr. HODGE

I do not understand how this ruling came to be given, and I am taking the matter up with the local committee concerned. In considering an application for an allowance under Regulation 7 (1) (a), the amount of any voluntary allotment made by the husband should be disregarded.