NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES (Hansard, 13 March 1947)

§ Lieut.-Colonel Corbett (Ludlow)
There is one point which I would like to raise—the question of retired pay. The retired pay of officers who voluntarily relinquish their commissions is less than that of those officers who leave the Service at the time for retirement directed by the War Office. That is an innovation which the White Paper brought before Parliament last year. It has caused considerable dissatisfaction, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the amount of saving it has effected in the Army, and whether he does not think that, in a way, it is really a breach of contract in regard to those officers who were serving before the innovation was brought in, because they were under the impression that, when they had finished their term of service, they would get the full rate of retired pay? Now, it is necessary for them to continue in the Army until it has finished with their services, if they are to become entitled to the full rate of retired pay. When some gentleman reaches the rank of brigadier, and thinks he has rendered the best services he can to his country, and decides to retire, he suffers a reduction in the retired pay to which he is entitled, whereas, if he stays a year or two longer, until the right hon. Gentleman disposes of his services, he is entitled to the full rate of retired pay.
This innovation certainly hits very hardly those officers who joined the Army before it was introduced. Those who join the Army now are naturally aware of their contract of service, but the others were not aware of it, and, in my view, it is unfair to treat them in this way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may even now consider reviewing the matter.

§ Colonel Wigg
There are one or two points which I wish to raise on this Vote. First, I wish to refer to one of the major weaknesses of the War Office. There is an article in the Royal Warrant which 1700 deals with special campaign pensions. A man has to be extremely advanced in years, to have served in a campaign, and to have earned a medal on active service, to qualify for such a pension. But, in the old days, when the conditions were first laid down, the War Office imposed a limit beyond which a man could not qualify for that pension. The limit was so low—Poor Law relief—that it now means that anyone in receipt of an old age pension is ineligible to receive the special campaign pension. Only a few weeks ago, one of my constituents came to me—a man who had given 18 years' service, and whose conditions of service were such that he could not qualify for a long service pension—and inquired why he could not be given a campaign pension. I looked up the matter, and found that the conditions were such that they stopped anyone from ever qualifying for it. I hope that the Secretary of State will look into the conditions attached to the special campaign pensions, to see if they cannot be liberalised, in order to bring in the type of old soldier for whom they were originally intended.
I hope also when the Secretary of State replies that he will consider the whole administration of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. I am a great believer in tradition, but we can pay too great a price for tradition. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) once reminded the House of the conditions under which the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, was conceived. I think it had something to do with Nell Gwynn and the fact that that lady did not always make her living selling oranges. But it is true that the Royal Hospital was established in order to provide for old soldiers who were thrown on to the scrap heap. I do not believe it was so very long ago when they were regarded as out-patients. There is no liaison between the Royal Hospital and the War Office, because on the evidence with which I provided the House on the previous occasion, and as contained in the Secretary of State's letter to me today, they are sending out communications which are of no validity whatever. I hope the Secretary of State will look into that point.
It is common sense to hand over the payment of pensions to the Ministry of Pensions who are dealing with a very 1701 large number of pensions. They are skilled in the administration of pensions and, without casting any slur on the War Office, they have a much more humane approach to the pensioners and a much greater knowledge than the War Office. Surely, it would provide the kind of administrative improvement that could be carried out without any dislocation, and would be of great benefit to those who receive the pensions. I hope the Secretary of State will examine the matter, perhaps with the Minister of Defence, and put this reform into operation at the earliest possible moment.

§ Brigadier Head
I hesitate to prolong the Debate, but I am one of the few Members who have not intervened in this Debate. I would like to support the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) in the question of officers who elect to leave the Army of their own accord and not at a time selected by the War Office. This has recently led to several anomalous situations. I know of one personally—it is not myself—where an officer asked if he could go, and the War Office said, "Yes, you can go, provided it is at your own wish, but we are not going to sack you." It would pay him if the War Office told him to go.
The second point is equally small, but, as we are on tiny points, I venture to raise it. Everybody here will agree that to gain a bar to a medal for gallantry is a great feat in the Army. On page 127, paragraph 3 of the Army Estimates, hon. Members will see "Gratuities for distinguished conduct and for long service and good conduct," and various medals. I know it for a fact that a soldier who has received the Military Medal, which is as fine a decoration one can get in the whole of the Army, with the exception of the Victoria Cross, gets £20. Should he get a bar to the Military Medal he gets nothing. That strikes be as being a most extraordinary anomaly. If he gets a bar he can wear a rosette on his ribbons, but in cash value the War Office refuse him the extra £20 That is a very small anomaly, which I feel the right hon. Gentleman should wipe out here and now off his own hat, without consulting the financial experts in his Department.

§ Mr. Bing
There is a very small point to which I desire to draw attention. Those 1702 of us on this side of the Committee who have been critical from time to time of the Polish troops observe that there are two extra statutory pensions for Poles who have given particular service to this country. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he mentions who they are so that we can pay tribute to them and acknowledge the great services which, from time to time, have been given by these Polish Forces.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I will deal with the various point that have been raised. One raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett), who was supported by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), was in regard to the retirement of officers. There is something more involved in this question of the amount of pension paid to an officer who voluntarily retires at his request and not at our request. After all, other ranks can only get out through the ordinary age and service release groups, or by the finish of their normal engagement. It would be unfair on the officers, and especially those senior officers who at the present moment wish to leave the Army for their own purposes before we want to dispense with their services, some of whom are going to considerable jobs in civilian life, to give them an advantage over other ranks. Without having looked into this matter in close detail I should say that it is not fair that an officer who wants to retire voluntarily, and suits himself and not the Army, should expect to get the full reward in the way of pension that he would have got if he had given full service to the Army and then had retired.

§ Brigadier Head
I think the right hon. Gentleman perhaps misunderstood my point, and I am not aware of the case which he has described. If a man asks now to leave the Army the War Office say: "No, there is an emergency" I am a case in point. I am a regular soldier in the Army, along with many others, and we are not allowed to leave the Army unless the War Office says, "Yes." There are those lucky few to whom they say, "Yes," for the reason that the War Office does not want them any more. If the War Office wishes to retain them it says, "No," and for some mystic reason it said, "No" to me. That is the whole point I am making. Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, if the War 1703 Office says "Yes" to an officer applying to get out it is tantamount to the War Office saying, "We don't require you any more." I do not see why those who leave voluntarily should not have the same pension.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I do not think it is quite as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put it. This only arises in a very few cases, because the emergency is still on, and we need all these officers to continue, just as we need the other ranks who have enlisted for an engagement and who are bound by that contract. In certain cases when senior officers ask to retire voluntarily approval is given, and generally, these cases come to me for my final approval. I do not want to stand in the way of them going, especially as that allows for more promotion amongst the officers below. But the hon. and gallant Member, of course, is in an entirely different position, as he knows only too well. I should imagine he is in a similar position to myself. We are both unemployed, and that is the only way we can serve in this House. I do not know whether I have yet been written off the books of the Army, or whether the hon. and gallant Member has. But he is in a special position, and if he wants to put in a special request to leave the Army we will consider it, and also the question of a pension.

§ Brigadier Head
I am sorry to keep at this point, but I still do not seem to have made it quite clear. The point I am trying to get across to the right hon. Gentleman is this: An officer wishes to leave the Army—I know of several who have asked the right hon. Gentleman—but he says, "No, you have been to the Staff College, you have great war experience, you cannot leave the Army." Several of my colleagues have had that experience. In some cases an officer goes along and says, "I want to leave the Army." There is a lot of thumbing over of files, and perhaps some red ink is found, and they say, "Of course, leave it if you wish, but if you leave now you will get this rate of pension, but if you wait you will get that rate of pension." The point is that this officer is able to leave, whereas other officers are retained.

§ Mr. Bellenger
Surely, the pension should be related to the length of service, 1704 and if an officer wants to retire before we want him to retire, I do not think there is any injustice.

§ Brigadier Head
I am very sorry—

§ Mr. Bellenger
I think the hon. and gallant Member has put his point quite sufficiently. I understand it quite well, and I disagree with him on the point he has put. I think it is not unfair in relation to other ranks if he does retire from the Army earlier than he might have done, or earlier than we want him to retire. He suffers to some extent, but it is not to a great extent.
May I deal briefly with one or two other points that were raised? I have great sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend about the special campaign medal. He might have noticed that during the war, when I was constantly writing on these matters, I wrote on this particular issue. But we have proceeded far from those days when the special campaign medal was rather like a "dole" as an act of charity to the old soldier. Today this Government, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, have improved the social services out of all recognition and, therefore, the lesser is merged into the whole. Today I do not suppose there are many of these special campaign medals in existence. I feel myself there should be some recognition—not always a monetary recognition—to the old soldier who served his country well, but this special campaign medal, with its meagre dole, is better washed out and merged into the old age pension which is given by the Government in entirely different circumstances without the recipient having had to serve many years and give good service in the Army to qualify for it.

§ Colonel Wigg
The right hon. Gentleman will have to do one of two things. He will either have to cancel the article of Royal Warrant under which the special campaign medal was awarded, or he will have to increase it so as to make it possible for somebody to draw it.

§ Mr. Bellenger
After all, old soldiers die out sometime, and these special campaigners are gradually dying out. I would not like, without mature consideration, to eliminate the old provision which has been going on for some time, as it might deprive some deserving old soldier of even a small pension.
1705 With regard to the Royal Hospital, which my hon. and gallant Friend has invited me to inquire into, I would say that it is true that it is an ancient institution dating back to the days of King Charles. I have forgotten whether it is King Charles I or King Charles II.

§ Brigadier Low
Army education?

§ Mr. Bellenger
Hon. Members can quite understand why I introduced these new educational provisions into the Army. It is quite obvious that even the Secretary of State for War can do with a little of this benefit. When I was Financial Secretary, I was a Commissioner of the Royal Hospital, and I can say it does good benevolent work for many old soldiers and it is the authority for the dispensation of Service pensions. I should not like, especially at this hour, to saddle my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions with the responsibility for administering these pensions, and I do not think that there is any great harm in the Royal Hospital administering them. My hon. and gallant Friend who has a Service pension from the Royal Hospital and has made reference to it, makes me think that there has been a misunderstanding as to his Reserve liability. But I will endeavour to put that matter right. On the general principle of the Royal Hospital we can leave it where it is on the undertaking that, after this Debate, I will go farther into the powers and provisions under which the Hospital operates.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I have not forgotten my hon. Friend. Reference has been made to the two pensions in the Vote which, I think, refer to two senior officers in the Polish Army. Speaking again without my brief I think one is General Anders.

§ Mr. Callaghan
I do want to invite the sympathy of the Committee for five minutes, although I know the hour is very late. It is a matter on which I received an answer this afternoon from the Financial Secretary and I did think of balloting so that I might be enabled to raise the question on the Adjournment. It comes under Sub-head "M". This is the case of a man who, in 1943, was knocked down and killed in the road. He was killed in these circumstances. There was an Army deserter who was being taken back to gaol by a military escort. On the way, the 1706 party met the prisoner's wife. This was in the early morning, and the wife invited them to have some tea. They had the tea, and as they moved down the road, a lorry was driven past slowly and the man driving the lorry called out. The prisoner broke away from the escort, jumped on to the lorry, which immediately picked up speed, and sped down the road. The bombadier in charge of the escort rushed after the lorry and jumped on board. A fight ensued, distracting the attention of the driver, who lost control, and two men were struck and killed. The lorry went on and overturned some way down the road. The man driving the lorry got away, and the only connection established was that, when the lorry overturned, the man driving it was supposed to have suffered an injury. Actually, he was later found in hospital by the police, and it was then discovered that he happened to be the brother of the prisoner. There was no connecting link—

§ Commander Agnew (Camborne)
On a point of Order. I agree that this is a case which is very compassionate, but is it not, nevertheless, relating to expenditure in this year, whereas we are dealing with financial expenditure for a new year?

§ The Chairman
The point cannot be dealt with unless it comes under one of the headings.

§ Mr. Callaghan
I think, Major Milner, that I can show that I am in Order. It comes under Subhead "M," and will be expenditure for the forthcoming year, because the Compassionate Grants Committee is going to review the case. I had a letter this afternoon, and that is why I have raised this matter again now, because I understand there is not likely to be a favourable reception.

§ The Chairman
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is talking about a possible gratuity connected with an accident. That does not seem to come under the Sub-head "M," which deals with "non-pensionable civilians retired on grounds of age, infirmity or abolition of office, and under the Superannuation Act of 1914, to the dependants of non-pensionable civilians who die while serving."

§ Mr. Callaghan
Yes, to the dependants of non-pensionable civilians.

§ The Chairman
I doubt if the hon. Member is in Order, and surely this is a matter which the hon. Member might take up in correspondence, or personally, with the Minister concerned, without taking up the time of the Committee.

§ Mr. Callaghan
I was inviting the sympathy of the Committee for a case like this, where there is such a heavy moral responsibility, in order to show the Financial Secretary that, in the Committee's view, there should be a sympathetic review of the case. I can think of no stronger case than that which I have outlined. There was no actual connecting link between the man found in hospital, who happened to be the brother of the person with his face cut open, and the man driving the lorry. It is on that point that the whole case has fallen to the ground. I would ask for the sympathy of the Committee in this matter.

§ Mr. Pritt
I was rather shocked by something which the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that he was speaking without his brief, but that he thought that one of the extra-statutory pensions being paid to the Poles was being paid to General Anders. Now, some of us are very worried about any payment to General Anders. But if we are to understand that, in addition to his pay, General Anders is also to have a pension, then we shall become very worried indeed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say a little more about this matter.

§ Mr. Bellenger
Let me at once disabuse the hon. and learned Member's mind. There is no pension in addition to the pay of General Anders. As the hon. and learned Member knows, those members of the Polish land Forces whom we hope to resettle are entitled to the pay of their rank; but this pension is in substitution of pay.

§ Mr. Driberg
Is General Anders now regarded as a former officer, or is he still an officer in the Polish Forces?

§ Mr. Bellenger
This Vote refers to expenditure in the coming year, and when he receives this pension he ceases to be an officer in the Polish Forces.