§ Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is to remove and anomaly under which officers of the Royal Naval Reserve have suffered up till now, as distinct from the officers of the other Reserve forces of the Crown. It is in order to enable Royal Naval Reserve officers disabled by wounds, injuries or disease to receive the same disability rates as other Reserve officers, and to enable widows and children and, in certain cases, the dependent relatives of such officers as may be killed in action to receive the same benefits as are payable in the case of children and dependants of officers of the Royal Navy killed in action. I do not think that there is any opposition to the Bill, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
§ Mr. AMMONBefore this Bill passes its Second Reading, and perhaps further stages, there are two main points on which I would like some assurance. although it may be that I do not appreciate entirely the wording of the old Act and the proposed Amendment before the House. In the Act of 1863, Section 3, which it is proposed to amend, lays down that
If any such person is disabled or receives any hurt or wound in actual service, he shall be entitled to the same allowance or pension in respect thereof as an officer of the Royal Navy of corresponding rank would be entitled to under similar circumstances; and if any such person is killed in action, or dies from any wound or accident resulting from the performance of his duties, his widow (if any) shall be entitled to the same pension as the widow of an 2153 officer of the Royal Navy of corresponding rank would he entitled to under similar circumstances.I am under the impression that the Act of 1863, not having been repealed, would still govern the conditions of service of both Naval and Naval Reserve officers in this respect, and that the standard for these rates is the rate of remuneration of officers in the Royal Navy, and that it would apply equally to-day as when the Act was passed. What seems a very vital and serious alteration is that, as far as I read the Amendment, it changes some words and leaves the amount of compensation or gratuity to be at the discretion of the Admiralty. It seems to remove the standard laid clown here, that standard being the rate of pay of officers of corresponding rank in the Royal Navy. If that standard be removed, it seems that there is no safeguard for the Reserve officer who may, in certain eventualities, take service in the Royal Navy, and that his pension would suffer in the event of disability. It seems that under the proposed Amendment, if that contingency should arise, his pension would be determined as the Admiralty thought proper, without any definite standard being laid down to guide them, and he might be worse off than under the present arrangement. We, on this side, ask for an assurance on those lines, because, reading the original Act of 1863 and the proposed Amendment, it is difficult to see what safeguard there is, and there certainly does seem to be the removal of the standard laid down in the original Act.
Mr. DAVIDSONI think I can give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. This Bill does not interfere or alter the rights of the Royal Naval Reserve Officer, as far as wounds in action or death are concerned. This is to bring him into the disablement category on post-War terms, which, up to now, he has not enjoyed with the officers of other reserve forces of the Crown. Up to now, the Act of 1863, which does not deal with disablement, but does deal, as the hon. Gentleman said, with wounds in action or death, has applied, and the Amendment in this Bill is to enable the Royal Naval Reserve Officer to have his rights extended to a pension for disablement in the same way as the officers of the other reserve forces.
§ Mr. AMMONUnder the proposed Amendment, will the officer still be entitled to a pension equivalent to the equivalent rank held by an officer in the Royal Navy?
§ Mr. MARCHMay I ask the hon. Gentleman a question arising out of this? I happen to be rather closely associated with an officer who is at present in one of the Government institutions, he. having, through service abroad, become mentally defective, and has been so for several years. In the event of this man passing away, as the result of disability through services rendered to his country for a number of years, will his widow be entitled to any superannuation, as is laid down here, as if he had died through wounds?
Mr. DAVIDSONIt is difficult for me to answer that question offhand, because I do not know whether the case which the hon. Member has in mind is that of an officer of the Royal Navy, or an officer of the Mercantile, Marine.
Mr. DAVIDSONThis Bill does not apply to them, but if the hon. Member will bring before me the case he has in mind, I will inquire into it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a Second time.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill." —[Mr. Davidson.]
§ Mr. AMMONThere will be no objection on this side to the Committee stage, on the understanding, as I gather from the hon. Member, that there is no damnifying of the position of the officer, and that the equivalent rank in the Royal Navy applies.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.