§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Elwyn JonesUnder Section I of this Clause
No forfeiture of the pay of an officer… shall be imposed unless authorised by this or some other Act, and no deduction from such pay shall be made unless so authorised or authorised by Royal Warrant.I should like to know why there is this distinction. The procedure of authorising deductions from the soldiers pay by Royal Warrant really means that Parliamentary control over such measures just does not exist.The Royal Warrants, I suppose, are drawn in the financial branches of the War Office. No doubt very admirable gentlemen function there, but they are not under our control. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would tell what the position is. On this side of the House we are not at all happy about parting with Parliamentary control over deductions from soldiers' pay. Soldiers' pay is not generous, and we want to be reassured and know why this power has been given to the War Office.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. F. MacleanIn the first place, I should like to refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the report of the Select 651 Committee. From that it becomes clear that the present Clause, which deals with forfeitures and deductions, and replaces Section 136 and parts of Sections 138 and 140 of the present Act—this particular part is largely negative—provides that no forfeiture of pay shall be made, unless authorised by Statute and no deduction from pay shall be made, unless authorised by Statute or Royal Warrant.
It specifically provides that deductions of a penal nature may be authorised only by Statute. It also provides effective regulations under Royal Warrant to provide that the officer, or other rank in question shall receive such minimum rate of pay as may be prescribed by the Army Council, but in case of forfeiture the amount of pay issued for the period may be recovered by subsequent deductions of pay.
§ Mr. Elwyn JonesWhile the Undersecretary has a further briefing upon the matter, perhaps I can usefully pass the time which he requires for further instruction by venturing to suggest that that does not reassure us at all. It is true that it might be even worse, and that the Clause might indeed have given the War Office power by Royal Warrant to make penal deductions as well, but it has done enough already to authorise in a very general sense deduction by pay.
It is true that penal deductions are excluded, but a whole range of deductions is available. If the Under-Secretary has now been adequately instructed—I say this without offence—on this matter, perhaps he will reassure us further about this point, because the obscure decisions of an obscure office in the financial department of the War Office are something over which the soldier has little influence and in which Members of Parliament can take little interest once we have given power to these obscure offices, who have the force of law behind them by reason of the machinery of the Royal Warrant. I hope that we shall get more light on this subject.
§ Mr. MacleanAs I said before, the provisions of this Clause are largely negative. The reason why the Royal Warrant comes into it is that a soldier's pay is a matter of Royal Prerogative.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.