6 and 7. Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that some time after 1875 the commencement of the war it was decided that the conditions of employment of unestablished civilian employés who had been engaged at Army headquarters, and elsewhere, in this country, should follow the Regulations then in force for civilian subordinates, and that under those Regulations there was a provision enabling the Army Council to recommend the payment to employés not entitled to a pension of a compassionate gratuity, subject to their having served a period of seven years; that on the 16th December, 1921, the officer commanding-in-chief the Eastern Command communicated with the War Office strongly supporting the application of Mr. Frederick Buck, who had been employed in the office of the assistant director of supplies and transport, Eastern Command, for seven and a half years, for a retiring allowance, and that the application was refused; if he will state whether, at the time it was decided to apply to temporary clerks and other civilian employés the Regulations for civilian subordinates, they were notified that they would be excluded from the benefit of the Regulation authorising the grant of compassionate allowances;
(2) whether he is aware that the War Office, in a circular dated 1st June, 1922, laid down the course to be followed as regards the grant of compassionate gratuities to unestablished civilian employés on their discharge; that at an early period in the War such employés were made subject to the Regulations for civilian subordinates, numbers 160 and 162 of which deal with the question of gratuities on discharge; that in the circular referred to it is intimated that the cases of employés in supervisory technical, clerical, or analogous posts, who were engaged for the purposes of the late War, are not to be regarded as falling within the category of employment to which the two Regulations in question were intended to refer; that in the same circular it is laid down that employés engaged on manual labour are to be treated as being eligible for the grant of retiring allowances; if he will state what is the basis of this distinction to the detriment of clerical and technical employés, many of whom were in receipt of less remuneration than that of the manual employés, and who in a number 1876 of cases necessarily made greater sacrifices when giving up their former employment and placing their services at the disposal of the Government; whether, at the time it was decided to make unestablished civilian employés subject to the Regulations for civilian subordinates, it was laid down that clerical and manual employés would be treated on a different footing as regards eligibility for compassionate gratuities; and if he will take steps to have the matter reconsidered?
§ Lieut-Colonel STANLEY
I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer on this subject given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Woolwich on 4th May.
Sir F. HALL
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the replies to which he has referred me there are no replies to these questions at all, and may I ask for a specific reply to the last part of question No. 7, in which I ask whether at the time it was decided to make unestablished civilian employés subject to the regulations for civilian subordinates, it was laid down that clerical and manual employés would be treated on a different footing as regards eligibility for compassionate allowances?
§ Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY
I think if my hon. and gallant Friend looks it up, he will find that the reply of 4th May deals with that question.
Sir F. HALL
I am sorry to press my hon. and gallant Friend, but may we know whether clerical employés have been treated in a disadvantageous manner as compared with those nominated as manual workers? Is there a difference between them?
Sir F. HALL
Will my hon. and gallant Friend look into the matter and see whether there is a difference in this respect between the clerical staff and those termed manual workers?