§ VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN rose to ask His Majesty's Government what the reason is for the issue of War Office Army Order No. 154, dated 12th April, 1921, three days after the Reserve of Officers had been called up, considering that it is in direct opposition to Royal Warrant for pay, paragraph 518 and paragraphs 496 and 497; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before I submit the Question which stands in my name on the Paper, I should like to offer one reason why I put it down. It is very definitely laid down in Paragraph 496 of the Royal Warrant for Pay and Appointments, 1919, that in case of retired officers the rates to which they refer shall be additional to any retired pay of which they may be in receipt, or irrespective of any gratuity they may have received on retirement. The fact is, as I have stated in my Question, that on April 12, 1921, an Army Order was issued which completely drove a horse and cart through that paragraph of the Royal Warrant.
§ I have only at this moment received the Royal Warrant. I could not get a copy of it in the Stationery Office this morning. I shall not, therefore, add anything to what I have said, but will merely put my Question. I feel, however, that the Government cannot have recognised the hardships that the passing of the War Office Order has inflicted on many officers in His Majesty's Service, and, in order to try and convince them of that, I may be allowed at 'a future date to go more fully into the matter. Meanwhile, I put the Question which stands in my name.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL)My Lords, the noble Viscount opposite is perfectly correct in the quotation which he has given your Lordships from Articles 496 and 497 of the Royal Warrant, which provide that retired officers compulsorily recalled to service in an emergency should receive the full pay of their rank, or payment without reduction of retired pay, and should, on determination of their employment, receive a gratuity of thirty-one days' pay for each year or part of a year. These Articles, however, were placed in abeyance by Royal Warrant in September, 1920. The number of the Army Order is 392 of 1920, so that there is no contravention of the Warrant in the case of officers in the Reserve of Officers. Article 518, to which 131 the noble Viscount refers, does not affect emoluments, hut relates only to the liability to recall of officers on retired pay.
Perhaps I may add that the whole question of the terms of employment of ex-officers is full of difficulty. The fact is the preparation of fresh Regulations involves the co-ordination of the Army, Navy and Air Force Rules—a task of much complexity, which will require great consideration in detail, and it cannot, of course, be dealt with in a short time. It follows that when the present emergency arose there were no Standing Regulations as to the emoluments of retired officers reemployed, and the conditions decided upon, as approved by the Secretary of State, were published by Royal Warrant promulgated under Army Order 154 of 1921. I think that meets the point raised by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNI gathered from the noble Lord's reply that an Order has been issued which abrogated the Royal Warrant. Am I right?
§ VISCOUNT PEELNot quite. You cannot abrogate one Royal Warrant except by another, and there has been a subsequent Royal Warrant placing the previous one in abeyance.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNIt seems to me that does not do away with the hardships of which the officers complain. There are many cases, which I shall be prepared to quote on a future occasion, showing that these officers, in doing what they have done—which, of course, is their duty—will be very much out-of-pocket as a result.
§ VISCOUNT PEELAnother scale of payment is introduced by this Royal Warrant.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNI am afraid that I am at a discount at this moment, but I shall go further into the matter on a future occasion.