§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether the length of service as assistant paymaster amongst officers now serving varies from eight years to sixteen years; whether, under the new scale of pay, length of service as assistant paymaster has no effect on pay subsequent to promotion; and whether the desirability will be considered of attaining more equal treatment by promoting upon the attainment of a fixed age, or upon the expiration of a fixed period of service?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe length of service as assistant paymaster of officers now serving has varied from sixteen years for those promoted from assistant paymaster to paymaster in 1888 to eight years for those similarly promoted in 1905 and 1906 16 For the last ten years the maximum service has been ten and a half years. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, neither of the courses suggested is practicable, as the establishment of officers of the ranks of paymaster and above is regulated by the requirements of the Service.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether, upon the introduction of the new scale of pay recently introduced, accountant officers were required to choose between the old and the new scale; and whether, seeing that in the case of assistant paymasters the choice is in the nature of a gamble by reason of their ignorance of the date at which they may respectively be promoted, the First Lord will consider the desirability of allowing assistant paymasters to take the new scale of pay and to postpone their choice until they are actually promoted?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, it is not considered desirable or practicable to depart from the long-established practice of calling upon officers to make their choice when a new scale of pay is introduced.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent the number borne of accountant officers of the senior list in the Royal Navy is below the number authorised by Order in Council of the 2nd April, 1909; whether officers at the top of the junior list have already served two and a-half years longer in their present rank than officers who were promoted in 1905; and when it is intended to complete the senior list to the number so authorised by Order in Council?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe number of accountant officers of the ranks of paymaster and above at present borne is twenty-four below the establishment authorised by Order in Council of the 2nd April, 1909, but it must be pointed out that that is a maximum establishment to be worked to as necessary. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, but the position in 1905 and other years about that time was altogether abnormal.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether the First Lord is aware that no widow's pension is provided for the widow of an assistant paymaster of four years' seniority; whether the widows of officers of the same relative rank in all other 17 branches of the Royal Navy are provided for; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to remove this difference of treatment?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe reply to the first two parts of the question are in the affirmative. I will have the matter further examined with a view to redressing any hardship that might be considered to exist.