Vote 10. Non-effective Services (Hansard, 10 March 1959)

§ Mr. Mellish
On the last Vote, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) spoke of a lost Victoria Cross. I want to talk about those who still have the V.C. The question has been raised before and we now have the chance to raise it again. Under the subhead, it is estimated that a sum of £2,650 is all that will be required for pensions for the existing holders of the Victoria Cross. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) is not present, because he has a particular interest in this matter. I know that some hon. Members opposite also are keen about it.
1152 We read in the Explanatory Notes that the Victoria Cross was instituted in 1856 and that Recipients other than commissioned officers are entitled to an annuity (normally £10, which may be increased in certain circumstances). When was the £10 first instituted? I should be horrified to think that it was as far back as 1856. Because of the fall in the value of money alone, the figure should now be nearer £100. I gather that the "certain circumstances" are when it is proved that the holder is in a state of poverty. We have had only one or two cases of distress. The matter is worth considering again and I ask the Under-Secretary whether he cannot assure us that under the subhead it is practicable to be a little more generous.

§ Mr. H. Fraser
My impression is that the payment was instituted later than the introduction of the Victoria Cross. Two years ago, it was declared that more generous payments could be made to holders of the decoration, but, as the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) and others will know, no change was made in the standard payment awarded.

§ Mr. Wigg
I wish to raise the question of the Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, which I hold, and the Meritorious Service Medal, which I do not hold. Many servants of the House of Commons have the M.S.M. It is given on a rota system, but one has to be about 90 before he gets the gratuity. Is it not time that the Minister considered the procedures which are followed in this case and whether it is not possible to step up the gratuity, which is only £10? This amount was fixed many years ago, when the value of money was much greater. If £10 was right then, it should be nearer £50 today.
A man is registered for the M.S.M. and eventually his turn comes, about twenty years after he has left the Service. Is it not possible, when his turn comes and he gets the medal, for him to get his gratuity? At present, he waits twenty years for the medal and then waits his turn again for the gratuity. If he gets it before he is 90, he is lucky. I do not plead for myself. I have no hope of getting either the medal or the gratuity. I certainly would not want it without the gratuity.
1153 For those who are eligible, however, will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to consider the method of award of the M.S.M. and the amount of the gratuity, as well as the Long Service Medal, the qualification for which is eighteen years of undetected crime? If the gratuity for this was £5 before the war, should it not now be £25 or even £50?

§ Mr. H. Fraser
I will look at both points, although without making any commitment to take action. Concerning the Meritorious Service Medal, my own feeling is that there should be some adjustment.