§ 16. Commander Purseyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the present annuity and the annual allocation of money for the Meritorious Service Medal for Royal Marine other ranks and naval ratings, respectively; what is the number of Royal Marine and Royal Navy holders of this medal, respectively; and what allocation would be required to pay the annuity to all holders of the medal when pensioned.
§ Mr. C. Ian Orr-EwingTen pounds, which, after adding various pension increases, amounts to an average of just over £20. The annual allocation of money is £400. This is for Royal Marine other ranks only, naval ratings not being eligible for an annuity. The total number of medal holders now alive is not known, but there are 236 Royal Marine other ranks eligible for the annuity. Payment of the annuity to all these would require a total sum of about £4,800 a year, including pension increases.
§ Commander PurseyWith Navy Estimates at over £400 million, why does not the Civil Lord increase the allocation for this medal and pay all these old sweats the petty sum of six pennies per day with their pension in the same way as with the Distinguished Conduct Medal? Why are naval petty officers who served with the Army under the same conditions during World War I in France and others awarded the medal for their meritorious war service not paid the annuity in the same way as the Army and the Royal Marines? Why award a Meritorious Service Medal for which Queen Victoria provided an annuity of £20 to petty officers for war service with the Army if they are then to be the only ones denied this paltry annuity of £10?
§ Mr. Orr-EwingI think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that it would not be just for the Royal Marines, but the Army would, of course, have to be given the same annuity, and this would cost £95,000. I also think it is right to say that this is a nice medal and many people who win it like to have it for the value of the medal and not for the annuity. I think it is not a bad arrangement.
§ 17. Commander Purseyasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many Royal Marine and Royal Navy holders of the Meritorious Service Medal were awarded the annuity in the last five years; what was the average age in each Service; in which years World War 1 and World War 2 lists are likely to be completed; and when the last of the present holders of the medal is likely to receive his annuity.
§ Mr. C. Ian Orr-EwingThe answers to the first two parts are four Royal Marine holders and 77 years respectively. No Royal Navy personnel are eligible. Awards of this medal were not confined to war time, and the names of holders who satisfy the conditions for annuity are on a common list. As new grants depend on vacancies arising, I am unable to give a specific answer to the last part of the Question.
§ Commander PurseyWhy has the annuity for the Victoria Cross been increased from £10 to £100 if, according to what the hon. Gentleman said in reply to my previous Question, the value of the medal is more important than the annuity? When this medal was introduced, the annuity was double the value of that of the Victoria Cross. Why should these old sweats, after 22 years' service, have to wait another 30 or 40 years for this paltry annuity of 3s. 6d. a week? After a long race of life against death with the odds against winning, is not the payment at the age of nearly 80 more of a death benefit than an annuity, as few men draw the annuity for any length of time?
§ Captain OrrOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Commander PurseyThere is no point of order, because I am now sitting down.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) rise to a point of order?
§ Captain OrrI was merely going to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, as the supplementary question contains a number of figures, it could be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid that I have lost count. I could not deal with that.
§ Mr. Orr-EwingI note the point of view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey).