§ 30. Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the case of Mr. A. Burrows, of 12, Julien Road, Ealing, who was appointed as a clerk in the London District Horse Guards in 1912, and at the request of the War Office was transferred to that office in 1915, and so lost his right to established status in the Horse Guards, which was granted in 1923, but did not qualify for established status in the War Office, which was conditional upon service before the outbreak of war, and who, when he agreed to the transfer could not then foresee that it would deprive him of established status and pension; and whether, in view of his continuous service in a State Department from 1912 to 1936 he may now be granted the pension he would have got without examination had he been employed for the whole time in either of these Departments?
Mr. COOPERI am aware of the facts of this case. Mr. Burrows, who was transferred with his own consent to the War Office in 1915, at which time he had no expectation of appointment to the permanent establishment, was in the same position as other temporary clerks who had not joined the War Office prior to the War. In 1923 he was allowed to compete in a qualifying examination for establishment but failed to qualify, and thereafter became too old. In the circumstances a certificate of qualification as an established civil servant could not be issued to him, and without such certificate there is no power under the Superannuation Acts to grant him a pension.
§ Sir F. SANDERSONIs it not a fact that this man has been deprived of his pension merely because he was transferred by the Government from the Horse Guards to the War Office?
Mr. COOPERNo, it is not a fact. He was transferred with his own consent. He could have taken the same examination three years earlier if he had remained at the Horse Guards, but there is no reason to suppose that he would have passed the examination then if, when he took it three years later, he failed.
§ Sir F. SANDERSONHas nay right hon. Friend looked at the letter that he sent to me on 29th May last, in which he will find that what I say is substantiated?