§ 20. Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the desirability of exempting the 220 cadets who were at Woolwich, and the 549 cadets who were at Sandhurst, on the 17th October, 1925, the date of the promulgation of the revised rates of pay, from the incidence of these rates on the ground that these cadets were already committed to a military career, and in the case of cadets from the ranks the new order altered the material conditions under which they had signed a contract to serve for five years as officers?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSAs I stated in answer to a question on this subject on the 4th February, I cannot agree to any general departure from the rule that officers commissioned on or after 26th October, 1925, come under the new rates and conditions of pay. The question of a possible concession to Woolwich cadets who suffer in comparison with Sandhurst cadets of equal seniority is under consideration. My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in thinking that cadets from the ranks are required to sign a contract to serve for five years as officers.
§ Sir A. KNOXDoes not my right hon. Friend think that these cadets have been unfairly treated, as they were committed to a military career?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThat is a matter of opinion. It is always very hard when there is an alteration in conditions of service, and sometimes it may well be said that it is unfair, but I have tried to do what is fair in this particular case.
§ Sir WILLIAM DAVISONWill the right hon. Gentleman see that the Woolwich cadets who went in at the same time are not prejudiced as compared with the Sandhurst cadets?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI have already said that that is under consideration.
§ Captain GEEWill a decision be arrived at before these cadets will be due to be gazetted, in September or October of this year?