17. Sir B. PALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether compensation for loss of office has ever been considered in the case of those warrant officers who were serving as such when the age for retirement was reduced from 55 years to 50 years?
§ Mr. AMMONI assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to Warrant Officers and above who did not retire under the retirement scheme of 1922 or who were not eligible to retire under that scheme. In the branches to which the scheme was applicable, the retirement of a considerable number of officers at the top of the lists has had the effect of accelerating the promotion of those remaining, and this has to a large extent offset any disadvantage suffered by the reduction of the age of retirement. In the other Warrant Officer branches, the reduction has only been made in the case of those promoted to the rank or relative rank of lieutenant after due notice had been given. No vested rights of promotion to this rank can be recognised and in some of the branches concerned the effect is considerably 2101 mitigated by an increase in the number of officers of the rank allowed under the post-War establishment. It will be recognised that the large readjustments required after the War to meet the changed conditions could not have been effected without some degree of hardship in which most classes of officers have shared, and I regret that it is not possible to grant any special compensation in the cases referred to.