CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment of Section 76.) (Hansard, 5 April 1922)

§ Major-General SEELY
I presume the explanation of this is the same as the previous explanation, but I think we should like to hear it from the Secretary of State. There is such a thing as a separate Air Force Act in existence, and therefore we have to amend that part of the Army (Annual) Act. The point of substance in this is, do the same arguments apply here as in the case of the Army, because the number of boys enlisted for technical training is far greater in the Air Force than in the Army, and for that reason it is very important.

Captain GUEST
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Seely) says, this is even more important to the Air Force than to the Army, as two-thirds of our recruitment is from lads we train for two or three years, as the case may be, to be mechanics. The substance of the Amend- 2325 ment is exactly the same in its relation to the length of service and the question of pension, and consequently the explanation given by the Under-Secretary of State for War so completely covers the argument that it would be wasting the time of the House for me to put it forward.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD
I was hoping that, as we have two Ministers dealing with the one subject, we might get them to differ on this point. The point put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) was so plain. It is not a great number that is concerned compared with the number employed, but there are, I suppose, hundreds of cases where men have lost their pension under the present Pensions Act by only a few days; many cases of a month, some of a year, of a year and a few days; but they are all exceptionally hard cases, and it seems to me that if you put deliberately into this Clause that the period of 12 years shall be reckoned from the date on which he attains the age of 18 years, excluding the two years being counted as part of his military service on enlistment, there must be at the end of that man's journey, if for some reason or other over which he he has no control he cannot complete his actual 21 years from the age of 18, serious hardship. As, however, neither of the hon. Gentlemen can give us any decision relating to the matter, I would ask them favourably to consider it, say, next year, or at any time, so long as it is understood that the thing should not be lost sight of. It will not be an injury until the next generation comes along, but they will think that those who were protecting the interests of soldiers in this House must have been neglectful of their duty if attention is not drawn to it now.

§ Mr. HOGGE
I should like to say that I am not at all impressed with the argument which says that in law it makes no difference. It is not a question of law. A man is entitled to this pension if he has fulfilled the conditions. You are imposing conditions which may make it impossible for him to fulfil those conditions, and yet he has been both in the Army and the Air Service. I must confine myself now to the Air Service. We are now in Committee, and this must come up again on Report, when both those Clauses ought to be amended by the 2326 addition at the end, after the words "18 years," of words to this effect: But in the event of a claim for long service pension being deficient in so much Army service, any service before the age of 18 to make up that service shall count for pension purposes.

Lieut.-Cotonel WARD
That is the point.

§ Mr. HOGGE
If the hon. and gallant Gentlemen will look at it they will see that if they grant it they are not giving much away. It is not going to cost the State much, but it is going to make a great difference to the veterans. There are none yet in the Air Service, but, as has been said, the Air Service may, and probably will, be the great Service of the future. We must see that any bad conditions that obtain in the Army do not grow up in the Air Force.

§ Sir C. YATE
Surely half the boy's service might at any rate be allowed to count. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill will bring it in on Report that, if not the whole, at any rate half, the boy's service should be allowed to count for pension.

§ Sir R. SANDERS
I have said the point will be considered. It is possible, however, that there may not be a Report stage, but it does not make any difference this year. I am myself convinced that this Clause docs not affect anyone's right to pension in any way.

Mr. T. THOMSON
What the Committee wants to know is whether, as the law stands at present, the service prior to 18 years old does now count, and, if not, that it should be allowed to count.

§ Sir R. SANDERS
That is a different point altogether. I am simply saying that this Clause makes no alteration in the existing law as regards pension, to the best of my knowledge and belief. I did not give any undertaking whatever that I will alter these things.