HC Deb 02 June 1902 vol 108 cc1109-10
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Reserve Officers who have retired from the services on receiving a lump sum down by way of gratuity, and who have served during the South African war, are allowed the full pay of their rank, whereas those Reserve Officers who have retired on receiving a pension instead of a lump sum, and who have similarly served, are not allowed the full pay of their rank. Can he state how many military and how many naval officers, respectively, have either been deprived of pay altogether for their services in South Africa, or have received diminished pay on the ground that they are in receipt of retired pay or pensions. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War, is he aware that a Commander in the Royal Navy, compulsorily retired at the age of forty-five in 1900 with a pension of £300, reduced subsequently by commutation to £228, volunteered for service in South Africa in January 1901, joined as a trooper, was advanced through successive ranks to captain in the Imperial Yeomanry, and would be entitled, as such, to pay of £237, 5s. per annum, but that he has nevertheless been refused any pay whatever from Army funds, on the ground of his enjoyment of a naval pension; and, is it proposed to adhere in all cases to a rule which enables the War Office to accept the services of experienced officers, and at the end of their services to refuse to them any pay for those services.

MR. BRODRICK

It has been repeatedly explained to the House that retired officers re-employed cannot, under the Regulations, claim both effective and non-effective pay, but are permitted to choose whichever is most advantageous to them. I am aware of the case referred to in the second Question. If this officer elected to draw his effective pay, it would be necessary to deduct the value of the commuted pension which would reduce his salary below the rate of his present pension. An exception in a particular case would necessitate a general change in the rules laid down by the Treasury.

Two supplementary questions were asked by Mr. GIBSON BOWLES, but neither the questions nor the answers were audible.