§ 22. Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if it is the intention of the Board to compulsorily retire lieutenants and lieutenant-commanders, Royal Navy, who have risen from the lower deck, at the age of 50 instead of 55 as at present; and if he is aware that such an act would be very unpopular and unfair to the Service and the country?
§ Mr. AMERYI regret I am not yet in a position to give any information with regard to the arrangements to be adopted for clearing the lists of surplus officers
§ Sir B. FALLEIs the hon. Gentleman aware that, if this reduction takes place among the men who have risen from the lower deck, it will be said that it is only because they have no social influence behind them?
§ Mr. AMERYI would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await the statement of Admiralty policy with regard to these matters, which I hope will be made public in a few days.
§ 23 and 24. Commander BELLAIRSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether the Board can elucidate the meaning of the Order-in-Council, published in the "London Gazette" on Friday, enabling the Board to retire naval and marine officers for peculiarity of temper or other defect not amounting to misconduct or not caused by intemperate or irregular habits of life;
(2) whether, under the new Order-in-Council, the Board of Admiralty will be the sole determining authority as to peculiarity of temper sufficient to cause compulsory retirement and as to the rate of retired pay, pension, or gratuity given to an officer retired under these conditions?
§ 25. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether an Admiralty Order has recently been issued authorising the compulsory retirement of naval officers, irrespective of age or service, for alleged peculiarity of temper, even when no charge of actual misconduct is preferred; who will be the judge of the peculiarity of temper sufficient to justify the professional ruin of these officers; whether the unsupported opinion of the commanding officer at the time being will be accepted as sufficient evidence on which to retire an officer; whether there will be any appeal open to these officers; and if he has considered the power which this order will place in the hands of certain commanding officers over the future of the officers under them unless these officers are safeguarded by an independent authority?
26. Mr. FOOTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether an 1311 Order has been made by the Admiralty affecting the compulsory retirement of naval officers on grounds other than those of age and service; and, if so, what are the terms of the Order?
§ Mr. AMERYThe Order-in-Council, which appeared in the "London Gazette" of Friday, 28th April, enables the Admiralty to place on the Retired List, irrespective of age and service, officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who are considered unsuitable for further employment for reasons other than misconduct. Hitherto it has only been possible to effect the compulsory retirement of officers under what is known as the Misconduct Order-in-Council, which entails forfeiture of not less than 10 per cent, of the retired pay of any officer concerned. The new Order-in-Council is designed to meet the cases of officers whose retention in the Service is undesirable for reasons other than misconduct, and to whom the Misconduct Order-in-Council, with its attendant financial penalties, would, if applied, obviously operate harshly. It has long been the practice to deal with such cases by placing the officers permanently on half-pay, and it is considered that it will be in the interests of the officers, as well as of the Service, that the alternative of retirement shall exist in cases of this kind. The decision in each case will, as in the case of officers retired under the Misconduct Order-in-Council, and officers placed permanently on half-pay, rest entirely with the Board of Admiralty, who naturally will consider most carefully all the relevant circumstances. There is no more reason for supposing that these additional powers will be abused, than there is for assuming that existing powers, which have been used only very sparingly, are abused, and I think it may be taken for granted that no Board of Admiralty will retire an officer under the new Order-in-Council on the unsupported opinion of his Commanding Officer, or, indeed, without very substantial evidence that his retirement is desirable and justified in the interests of the Service. The rates of retired pay to be granted are those with which an officer may retire voluntarily with retired pay, where such retirement is allowed; in the case of lieutenants and lieutenant-commanders, and officers of equivalent rank under 40, the rate will be the same as the non-service rate of 1312 retired pay, with a slight variation in the method of reckoning service. The rates in other cases are under consideration. I may add that the Order-in-Council is quite unconnected with the special retirement measures, the details of which are under consideration by His Majesty's Government, and will shortly be promulgated.
§ Commander BELLAIRSIs the hon. Gentleman aware that granting of this despotic power is much resented in the Navy, and is he aware that the Admiralty is compelled to retire an officer who has been two years unemployed?
§ Rear-Admiral ADAIRWho is to be the arbiter as to whether these officers should or should not be retained?
§ Mr. AMERYOf course the arbiter will be the Board of Admiralty, who will take into consideration very carefully all the information with regard to their various services. This Order in Council has been introduced for the benefit of the officers concerned.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWill the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, whether there is any appeal open to these officers and whether there will be a stigma attached to officers who are retired under this Order?
§ Commander BELLAIRSThe hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.
§ Mr. AMERYI thought I had answered it. It will be to the advantage of these officers that they should be able to go straight away on the footing of full retirement pay and not be kept on half pay till their period of half pay runs out.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEYWill the hon Gentleman consider the desirability of allowing officers who come under these rules to be heard personally in their defence so that they can plead their cause personally?
§ Mr. AMERYI will certainly consider that and the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but their so-called despotic powers are no greater than those exercised by the Admiralty in other respects, always with the greatest care.
§ Rear-Admiral ADAIRIf the commanding officer makes a report on these officers 1313 as to their fitness or otherwise for duty, will he make it known to the officers concerned before it is sent in?
§ Mr. AMERYI should like to consider that too, but we shall certainly not leave it to one commanding officer if he is adverse.
§ Colonel Sir C. YATEIs there to be any appeal tribunal?