§ 58. Mr. JANNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give the reasons why the pay of a temporary officer when first commissioned was 2s. 6d. a day less than that of his colleague who received a permanent commission?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking)The officer who received the extra 2s. 6d. a day was the regular soldier who had been given a permanent commission. The pensioner who received a temporary commission continued to draw his pension while he received full pay as an officer.
§ Mr. JANNERDid not the 2s. 6d. extra bring both those officers to the same rate of pay?
§ Mr. HACKINGNo, I think not exactly.
§ Mr. JANNERWill the right hon. Gentleman say why, if the rate was almost the same, the argument is still being used by him as to the divergence between the pensions of the two ranks?
§ Mr. HACKINGThe position is that the regular soldier who received a permanent commission was receiving the extra 2s. 6d. a day in the pre-war days. That was continued during the days of the War, but he was not drawing a pension at the same time for the rank he held.
§ Mr. JANNERWill the right hon. Gentleman say why, if the two rates of pay were the same, he is still not prepared to give equal treatment for pension purposes to the two ranks, considering that they did precisely the same duties during the War?
§ Mr. HACKINGThey were not in the same position with regard to the receipt of pension during the War, but in a quite different position.
59. Lieut.-Colonel TODDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider making the terms of Army Order 159, of 3rd May, 1918, applicable to all officers who were in the same category as regards commission, especially in view of the fact that these more favourable terms were given to soldiers late in the War, when professional soldiers holding temporary commission had been bearing the responsibility of commissioned rank from the beginning?
§ Mr. HACKINGThe Royal Warrant of 3rd May, 1918, applied only to regular soldiers who were serving on that date on ordinary peace attestations. Actually only six combatant officers were affected by the warrant, and my hon. and gallant Friend will find the circumstances more fully explained in paragraph 18 of the report of the Barnes Committee which was presented to the House. I regret that I cannot re-open this question.
Lieut.-Colonel TODDDoes not my right hon. Friend consider that those with longer service and greater experi- 2148 ence should be given the benefit of the increased pay?
§ Mr. HACKINGThis is going over the whole question again. I need only say at this moment that a very serious crisis, so far as the Army was concerned, took place in France in May, 1918, and that necessitated a. special inducement being given to certain men to take commissions, but that does not affect the general question.
§ 60. Major MILNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will specify the consequential claims, if any, which would directly arise out of any settlement of the claims of ex-ranker officers?
§ Mr. HACKINGOne class of claim would be that of retired officers who served in the War and attained higher temporary rank, for example, a retired captain who became a temporary lieutenant-colonel; and another class would be that of pensioned non-commissioned officers and men who served again in the War and attained higher ranks, such as a pensioned sergeant who became a warrant officer.
§ Major MILNERIs it not a fact that those pensions would not arise directly out of any settlement of any claims of the ex-ranker officer, because he was translated from one class of service to another, but the classes mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were in the same category, either as soldiers or officers, as the case might be?
§ Mr. HACKINGThe hon. and gallant Member says that they would not arise, but I fear they are arising and would arise in future, and it would be very difficult to resist claims of that kind if you granted this claim.
§ Major MILNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it has been brought to his notice that the policy of his Department in respect to ex-ranker officers who were pensioners prior to being commissioned has resulted, on the one hand, in their not receiving the retired pay of their rank, as for War Office purposes they are considered to be soldiers, and, on the other hand, they are being refused employment as pensioners, as for that 2149 purpose they are considered to be officers; and what remedial action is proposed?
§ Mr. HACKINGI am not quite sure what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind when he refers to the refusal of employment. I am aware that these ex-officers are not eligible for registration with associations which deal only with ex-regular soldiers; but on the other hand they are eligible for registration with associations which deal with ex-officers.
§ Major MILNERIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department issued a circular suggesting that pensioners might apply for positions as auxiliary postmen, and when ex-ranker officers applied they were refused employment on the ground that they were classed as officers?
§ Mr. HACKINGThe hon. and gallant Member did not make reference to that circular in his original question. If he puts down a further question, I will consider it. It was not clear what he wanted in his original question.
§ 62. Mr. JANNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of ex-ranker officers who would have been entitled to larger pensions if the claims of this class of ex-service men in that respect had been granted, and the average rate of pension payable at present to such men and the average rate of pension which would be paid if the claims were granted?
§ Mr. HACKINGThe number was stated to the Barnes Committee to be approximately 2,500. The Association of Ranker Officers placed the average ex-ranker officer's pension at £75. The rate of retired pay under Article 572A of the Royal Warrant was £150 a year in 1924. This rate is now £135.
§ Mr. JANNERIn view of the facts that the right hon. Gentleman has given in these figures, will he say how he arrives at the figure of £10,000,000 that would be needed to satisfy these claims?
§ Mr. HACKINGBecause of the consequential claims which would follow, which would have brought up the sum to a total sum of about £10,000,000.
Lieut.-Colonel TODDIs is not a fact that there were no consequential claims when the Naval and Marine pensions were dealt with?
63. Lieut.-Colonel TODDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will now reopen the case of the ex-ranker officers, as recommended by the Motion placed upon the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and 317 other Members of the House.
§ Mr. HACKINGI would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) on 23rd July last by the Lord President of the Council.
Lieut.-Colonel TODDIn view of the fact that more than 50 per cent. of the Members of this House ask for the case to be reopened, does that not outweigh the views of the Ministry?
§ Mr. HACKINGMy hon. and gallant Friend must not ask me that question. That must be put to the Leader of the House.
64. Lieut.-Colonel TODDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Lieutenant W. Egan, M.B.E., Royal Munster Fusiliers, an ex-ranker officer, who served for 22 years, from boy to warrant officer, Class I., and for two years as an officer, now only receives a pension of 4s. a day which dies with him, whereas had he remained a warrant officer he would have received 8s. 4d. a day, and his widow would also have received a pension; and whether the case can be reconsidered?
§ Mr. HACKINGThis case falls within the general question relating to ex-ranker officers, and I regret that I am not able to reconsider it. I should add that, had this officer continued to serve as a warrant officer until reaching the age limit in 1925, he would have received 6s. 8d. a day and not 8s. 4d. It must also be remembered that this officer applied for and was granted a temporary commission, drew his soldier's pension in addition to full pay as an officer and on his demobilisation in 1919 received the appropriate officer's war gratuity. The War Office has examined numbers of these cases and I think I may safely say that comparing the position up to the date of demobilisation no officer received less in total emoluments than he would have received had he not been commissioned.
§ Major MILNERSince demobilisation have they not been treated a good deal worse?