§ 19. Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention had been called to the case of Army pensioners who were employed as clerks in Record Offices and other Departments of the War Office prior to the War and who, on the outbreak of War, were desirous of re-enlisting but were not permitted to do 1110 so on the ground that they were rendering more useful service where they were; whether these men had, during the War, been engaged in the same work as if they had, in fact, re-enlisted and in many cases more laborious work; and whether he would consider the claim of these men to be granted the benefit of Army Order 325 of 1919, and to have their pensions reassessed as if they had re-enlisted, and for that purpose to have this Army Order amended?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLAs I stated last Tuesday, in answer to a similar question by the hon. Member for Canterbury, I regret I am unable to permit any departure from the terms of the Warrant requiring military service during the War as a condition of increase of pension.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERAre not these men, who were prevented from re-enlisting, as much entitled to the gratuity on the ground that they did precisely the same work as those who did enlist?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo; I think the only rule on which we can proceed is to regard what the person actually did, and whether that work brought him within the decision as to the gratuity.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERThese men wanted to re-enlist, but were not allowed to do so?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThere may be many people in different spheres of employment who would have liked to have enlisted, bad they been allowed to do so.