HC Deb 03 June 1919 vol 116 c1844W
Mr. HAYDAY

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the refusal of the Government to pay a war gratuity to Post Office servants has been based on the belief that these men occupy a favourable position because they are in receipt of full civil pay; whether he is aware that a man in receipt of full civil pay is frequently receiving less money than a man to whom this privilege is denied; whether he is aware that a man whose pre-war Post Office wage was 54s. would receive money payments as follows: civil pay 54s.; war bonus nil, Royal Engineer Army pay, 15s. 2d.; retention bonus, 10s. 6d.; separation allowance, 12s. 6d.; deductions, nil; total, 92s. 2d., whereas a man with the same pre-war wage who was not entitled to full civil pay would be in receipt of the following payments: civil pay, 54s.; war bonus, 34s. 10d.; Army pay, 14s.; retention bonus, 10s. 6d.; separation allowance, 12s. 6d.; total, 125s. 10d., less deductions by the Post Office of 7s. in lieu of Army pay, and 12s. 6d. separation allowance, making a total of 106s. 4d.; whether an adverse financial balance of 14s. 2d. is a justification for denying to the Post Office signaller the war gratuity which is paid to all other soldiers; and whether he will have the figures examined and reviewed with a view to the adjustment of this injustice?

Mr. FORSTER

The war bonus of 34s. 10d. used in this calculation has only very recently taken effect, and the average weekly receipts of a man over the whole period of his service would show a very different result. I will have the figures more closely examined and communicate the result to my hon. Friend, but I cannot hold out any hope that the decision about the gratuity will be revised.