§ 19. Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the Under-Secretary for War whether non-commissioned officers holding acting rank only have lately in some cases been deprived of their pay of that rank; if so, for what reason has this been done; and whether the former practice can be resumed?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONPromotion at home is to acting rank only and on transfer to another unit or on proceeding overseas a soldier is liable to revert to a lower rank or to his substantive rank. On proceeding overseas, acting rank can be made substantive provided the soldier has held the acting rank for a period of six months and is recommended by his commanding officer.
§ Sir C. SEELYCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether men holding acting rank always receive the pay of that rank so long as they hold that rank, and that the moment they revert to their substantive rank they receive the pay of that rank?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes; so long as they hold acting rank they receive the pay of that rank, and the moment they leave acting rank they receive substantive pay.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONBecause, in the first place, they are no longer acting.
§ Commander BELLAIRSWill the Army Council consider the proposal I brought before them that it is extremely hard lines on men who are wounded and who enter a British hospital that they should be deprived of their rank and the pay of that rank?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe difficulty is that the Treasury would not sanction the pay of two men doing one man's work.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe hon. Member must put that question to the Financial Secretary.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI cannot say that.
§ Mr. HOGGEIs he not the same man when he is wounded? When he is wounded you deprive him of his pay.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONWhen a man is wounded another man takes his place in acting rank.