Vote 10. Non-effective Services (Hansard, 13 March 1958)

§ Mr. Richard Sharples (Sutton and Cheam)
I apologise for taking time from the Air Estimates but I intend to raise the question of compensation paid to officers and other ranks who are compulsorily retired.
From the information that I have, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has treated officers generously, and where there has been a doubt he has decided in favour of giving compensation to officers and other ranks. I am raising the question of a certain number—I believe it is only a small number—of officers who have been retired under Section 196 of the Pay Warrant, 1950. This section says: General rule: Any officer may at any time be called upon by the Army Council to retire or resign his commission for reasons other than misconduct. Paragraph 198, is worded exactly the same, except that it says that he can be called upon to resign for misconduct.
The question I want to ask is, how many officers have been retired under this section during the last 12 months? What is the average number that has been asked to retire in the previous 10 years? We have to consider whether these officers are redundant or not. That is a most important question.
I can give as an example particulars of an officer who is being told to retire under this section. I will not name the officer, because although the wording of the pay code is so designed that there is no stigma against such an officer being retired under that section, to give his name might make it more difficult for him to obtain employment. My hon. Friend knows the name of the officer and all the details. I will give an outline of the case to the Committee.
This officer has been 19 years in the Territorial Army and the Regular Army. He started off in the ranks and he has 700 17 qualifying years for pension. Of course, he would have qualified for pension after 20 years. He won the Sword of Honour in his officer-cadet training unit. He won the Military Cross. He was twice wounded and he served as a temporary major and a squadron leader in an armoured regiment. All his last three commanding officers particularly recommended promotion to the rank of major.
I have an extract from the confidential report about him. I give it by way of example of the officers retired under this section. I will not read the whole of it. This confidential report says: He is a very hard working, thorough officer, who gets on with his job quietly and efficiently … He has good military knowledge and a wide experience, and is, in my opinion, a thoroughly competent practical officer. His one failing has been his inability to pass his promotion examination in military law. There is nothing detrimental in the remainder of the report, which concludes: I have no hestitation in saying that as a C.O. I would be delighted to have this officer in my regiment as a Squadron Leader, with the knowledge that he would not let me down, but would do his work loyally, competently and with efficiency. His grading is given as above the standard of his rank and service. In answer to the question "Fit now for promotion?" the answer is "Yes", to the next substantive rank. The report goes on to recommend that in the event of war he be commanding officer of an armoured car regiment.
This officer was retired, to the best of my knowledge, on the ground that he has been unable to pass his promotion examination in one subject only. The penalty that he suffers for that is not only what one expects, that he does not get promotion to the next rank; he also loses his pension, which he would have had, had he been allowed to stay on for the next two and a half years. Instead of receiving pension, he receives a terminal grant of £2,400 for 17 years' service instead of a gratuity of £1,500 and a pension of £500 a year for life. I work that out as a capital sum, taking the value of his pension and gratuity together, of £10,000.
Alternatively, if he has been allowed compensation for redundency, as almost every other officer we have got rid of in the Service is being given, he would have received a capital grant now of 701 £6,400, plus pension of £470 per year for life. The whole of that is equal, in my calculation, to a capital sum of around £15,000. That is the effect of failing in one subject. This officer will be retired on a technicality and will suffer this penalty in addition to not getting his promotion.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may say that the officer should have passed the promotion examination. I accept that as perfectly fair, but we are not all capable of being experts in military law. There are plenty of other qualities which are necessary in an officer. As to whether he is being declared redundant or not, I think that will become evident when my hon. Friend is able to give the figures, which I hope he will give of the average number retired under Section 196 of the last ten years.
I should point out that in the White Paper on Compensation for Premature Retirement from the Armed Forces, paragraph 1 says: Her Majesty's Government gave an assurance that fair compensation will be provided for those whose Service careers were prematurely terminated as a result of the planned reduction in the size of the armed forces. I submit that these men are being retired as part of the planned reduction of the Armed Forces.
Another basic factor upon which compensation was to be given was: the additional difficulties in finding employment in civil life. That condition applies equally to these officers as to any others. I do not in any way dispute the decision of the Army Council in telling these officers to retire. It is entirely up to the Army Council to decide which officers it wishes to declare redundant. If it wishes to choose officers who are not good at military law, that is the decision of the Army Council.
I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this very small number of officers on their individual merits, and where the reason for compulsory retirement is purely technical, to give them the benefit of the doubt. They are going out at a time when alternative employment will not be easy to find. They will be competing with officers, possibly with less service than they have, who have been given the full benefit of compensation for permature retirement.

§ Mr. J. Amery
I think I ought first to explain the rules by which we are guided in a matter of this kind, as a background to the particular case which my hon. Friend has explained to the Committee. Promotion examinations were reintroduced in 1950. It was then announced in Army Council Instructions, which have been repeated since, that if an officer failed to pass the examination his retention in the Service would be a matter to be considered by the Army Council.
It was also announced that these promotion examinations and the liability to be asked to retire from the Army in the event of failure would apply only to officers who reached the age of 30 on or after 1st January, 1950. The procedure we follow in practice to determine whether or not an officer should be retained is generally as follows. Every officer is given a second chance to pass the examination within a year. If he fails the second time, a commander, not below the rank of major general, is asked to recommend whether or not he should be given a third chance. That recommendation is then considered by a board in the War Office, which may grant an extra year to pass the examination, or submit the case to the Army Council. If it submits a case to the Army Council, the officer may make representations before a decision is taken.
In accordance with these rules and practice, a number of officers were retired in the period betwen 1950 and the announcement of the redundancy terms last year. Since the announcement of the redundancy terms, a further batch of officers have also been retired, of whom the officer referred to was one. My hon. Friend asked what the numbers were in either case. Nine officers were retired in the period between 1950 and the announcement of the redundancy terms and 18 have been retired since the redundancy terms were announced.

§ Mr. Sharples
Can my hon. Friend say if that is a total of nine in more than six years and of 18 in the last 12 months or so?

§ Mr. Amery
I was coming precisely to that point, because it was clear that my hon. Friend had that in mind when 703 he asked for the figures. On the face of it, my hon. Friend was quite entitled to draw the conclusion he has drawn. I have looked into the matter very carefully. I have had a long session on it today. I have come to the conclusion that it is not a direct consequence of the rundown of the Army. I say that on two grounds. The first is the general ground of the decision I have just described under which an officer was liable to be asked to retire from the Army if he had not passed the promotion examination, which did not begin to arise until about 1953 because we always give two years grace in these matters and the rule was introduced in 1950. It did not apply at all to officers over the age of 30. Therefore, it is only now beginning to apply to the main intake of Regular officers into the Army since the war.
In further substantiation of this point, of the 18 who have been retired since the redundancy terms were announced, very nearly half are in non-retirement categories. I think that shows that there is no direct connection between redundancy and the decision the Army Council has taken in this matter. As a matter of fact, the only change which has taken place in the last two months has been that the Army Council has decided in certain respects to make the rule slightly less stringent than it was in theory before—

§ Mr. Sharples
Not in practice.

§ Mr. Amery
—and it was becoming so in practice. That was one of the reasons why we came to the conclusion that the rule should not be too strictly interpreted.
I come to the case which my hon. Friend put forward. As he stated, that officer had a very fine military record. He became due for promotion on 7th November, 1955. He had twice sat the promotion examination and failed. He sat it again in 1955 and 1956 and failed on each occasion. His case was before the Army Council in 1957 when he sat the examination for the fifth time, and again failed to pass. He appealed to the Army Council against the decision that he should retire and the appeal was turned down. Whatever might be said of the category of officers to which my 704 hon. Friend referred, I think I can say with absolute certainty—or as much certainty as is possible in a matter of this kind—that this officer, who failed the promotion examination five times, would have been retired irrespective of the reorganisation of the Army.
The principles governing the retirement of officers who fail to pass the promotion examination were decided before the rundown of the Army had been considered at all. In certain respects, they have been made actually slightly more lenient since the decision of the rundown was reached. In particular, opportunities for a second and third chance can be given. This officer would have been retired whether or not the rundown had taken place. I do not think, therefore, he could be said to qualify for the redundancy terms.

§ Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield)
I apologise for intervening in this debate, but, having heard the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) and the very unconvincing reply, I think this matter deserves the attention of the Committee.
This is the case of an officer with a brilliant record, decorated by Her Majesty with the Military Cross, wounded, recommended for promotion, but failed in one subject, and he was retired or thrown out on a relatively small gratuity with two-and-a-half years to go for his pension.
My experience, I am glad to say, is that this sort of treatment does not happen in industry. I am quite certain that it would not happen in the Royal Air Force, and I am amazed at the lack of flexibility on the part of the Army Council as a result of which it is not possible to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam suggests. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the bad effect that this has upon recruitment. It is disastrous when it becomes known that an officer can be treated in this most shabby fashion.
There were no promotion examinations during the war, when we had some of our most brilliant officers, not only in the field, but serving at the Air Ministry or the War Office, who never passed a promotion examination. Territorial officers, 705 for example, rose to the rank of lieutenant-general. They were brilliant officers.
The War Office, it seems, has for some reason or other decided to dispense with this man's service. It is crazy to contemplate such a thing. It was only in recent years that cadets going into Sandhurst were pushed through quite regardless of certain failings because there was a shortage. But here is an officer, who has been well decorated and has proved himself in the field and as an administrator, who is allowed to go. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that he will look into this matter again with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see whether something cannot be done. If he does not, I am quite certain that the House will hear more of it.