§ Mr. CLEARYasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in connection with the deputation headed by the Lord Mayor of Liverpool which he interviewed on Friday last regarding the need for granting a gratuity in cases where, when a disabled ex-service man dies as a result of the disability for which he was pensioned, his widow and/or his children would not receive any allowance on the ground that he was married after he was disabled, he will conduct an inquiry into the question with a view to issuing a report on the matter?
§ Major TRYONThis question has been fully considered on more than one occasion, and it has been consistently held by Governments of all parties that the liability of the State in respect of the deaths of ex-service men should be limited to the men's family obligations as existing at the date of the contraction on service of the fatal disability. This principle, which is embodied in the Royal Pension Warrants approved by Parliament, has been frequently stated in this House, and was in fact defined in the precise terms which I have used by my predecessor on behalf of the late Labour Government in an answer given on 17th April, 1930, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. In these circumstances, and having regard also to the substantial provision for widows made by the Contributory Pensions Acts no public interest would, in my judgment, be served by the further Inquiry suggested.
§ Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Pensions, whether his attention has been directed to Case No. 1322W 11/N/23,409, Alfred Oscar Smith, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, who was injured on His Majesty's Ship "Neptune," in 1917, by having his foot crushed; what was the reason for his treatment at Roehampton Hospital for nine weeks from 14th December, 1934; and why this man has not only been refused a pension, but also refused a surgical boot unless he supplies at his own expense a boot for alteration?
§ Major TRYONMy hon. and gallant Friend has been misinformed as to the facts of this case. The man, who, after leaving the Service in December, 1918, unfortunately neglected to bring his case to the notice of the Ministry with a, view to obtaining necessary treatment until last year, was placed in hospital in order to determine whether operative or other treatment was required to remedy or alleviate the present condition of his foot. A special surgical boot was not found to be necessary, a, slight adaptation of one of the man's own boots being all that was required, and this has been satisfactorily carried out. Pension has not been refused in this case: on the contrary, the man has been instructed to supply certain necessary information, on receipt of which any compensation due will be awarded.