HC Deb 26 February 1924 vol 170 cc233-4
39. Major HORE-BELISHA

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain the circumstances under which paragraph 11 of the National Reserve Regulations, published in 1913, was cancelled by an Army Order published in September, 1914; whether he is aware that a large number of pre-War pensioners were members of the National Reserve and rejoined the colours at the outbreak of war under the belief that the time served under their new enlistment would count towards an increase of pension, as stated in paragraph 11 of the Regulations; and if he can state under what legal or military authority the Army Council broke this particular contract with the pre-War pensioner national reservists, some of whom won high rank and battle distinctions during the War, but are now receiving the noncommissioned pensions based upon their pre-War service?

Mr. WALSH

As regards the first part of the question, paragraph 11 of the National Reserve Regulations was cancelled as being inconsistent with Article 1158 of the Royal Warrant of 1913. That Article provided that a pensioner re-enlisted during a time of national emergency should draw his pay in addition to his pension, but should not count his re-enlisted service towards an increase in such pension, whereas paragraph 11 had been drawn on the contrary principle that the pension of a re-enlisted pensioner should be merged in his pay.

As regards the remainder of the question, I am aware that a number of pre-War pensioners re-enlisted before paragraph 11 was actually cancelled, but they gained, notwithstanding, by being allowed to draw pension and pay concurrently, though paragraph 11 was written on the assumption that this would not be permitted. Generally speaking, it would not now be to their advantage to claim to be dealt with under paragraph 11, since their pensions could not then be re-assessed under the provisions of Army Order No. 325 of 1919. If in any exceptional case it is considered that a re-enlisted pensioner would benefit by being dealt with under paragraph 11, I will give the circumstances of such a case my best consideration. At present, however, no such case is before me.