§ 24. Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering that the deductions made from the retired pay of Army officers who are in civil government employment are made on the grounds that the retired pay is not regarded entirely as a reward for past services, but to a large extent as compensation for loss of service at a comparatively early age, and that these reasons can only apply to officers who have been retired compulsorily, he will take steps to amend the Treasury Rules framed under the Superannuation Act, 1887, as regards officers who voluntarily retire on retired pay?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe rule in question is a statutory rule, and I have no power to amend it. I am not clear why the element of compensation for loss of service should be regarded as absent when the retirement is voluntary, and in view of the very much larger deduction which would be made from the pension of a civil servant if re-employed by the State I see no ground for reconsidering the very favourable terms allowed by the existing rule in the case of Army officers.
§ Colonel YATEIs there any reason whatsoever why the deductions should be made in the case of either civil or military officers; and if it is a Treasury Rule, cannot the Treasury alter it?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI understand that it is a statutory rule, and therefore it cannot be amended without the assent of Parliament.
§ Colonel YATEWill the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if it cannot be amended, and if it is not simply a Treasury Rule?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is my advice, that it is a statutory rule, and therefore cannot be amended by the Treasury without the assent of Parliament.