HC Deb 24 January 1956 vol 548 cc17-8W
Mr. Hale

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that the Oldham former fusilier, whose name has been communicated to him, was, after 26 years' service, charged before his commanding officer with wilful damage to a lavatory seat, convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a civilian worker, deprived of his rank, subjected to a reduction of pay amounting to 17s. 6d. a week and ordered to pay damage estimated at 15s.; and whether he will take action to prevent the imposition of excessive punishments of this kind;

(2) whether he is aware that the Oldham former fusilier, whose name has been communicated to him, was not given the option of trial by court martial on a charge of doing damage, estimated at 15s., to a lavatory seat; and whether he will cause an investigation of the matter to be made.

Mr. F. Maclean

This soldier who had served for sixteen years was charged with damaging public property by fire. Four witnesses gave evidence and I am satisfied that the case was properly conducted. As to the punishment, a commanding officer may order a non-commissioned officer holding acting rank or lance appointment to revert to his substantive rank and the latter has no right to elect trial by court-martial even though reversion involves a loss of pay. In assessing this soldier's punishment the commanding officer took into account the soldier's record and general behaviour in the Army in the light of which the award was not excessive.

Mr. Hale

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that the Oldham former fusilier, whose name has been communicated to him, was, after 26 years' service, charged a sum of £100 out of accrued gratuity of £130 to procure his release from the services; and how far this is in accordance with usual practice;

(2) whether he is aware that the Oldham former fusilier, whose name has been communicated to him, was, after 26 years' service, charged a sum of £12 10s. for the retention of his greatcoat; and what civilian clothing is normally provided for a man who is released after 26 years' service;

(3) whether he is aware that the Oldham former fusilier, whose name has been communicated to him, was, on being released from the Forces in Germany after 26 years' service, required to pay a sum of £4 10s. for his travelling fare home; and whether this is in accordance with the normal Army practice.

Mr. F. Maclean

This soldier had served for sixteen not twenty-six years. The £100 which he had to refund was the bounty he had received for re-engaging to complete 22-years service. The regulations governing the payment of such bounties prescribe repayment when a man purchases his discharge or, as in this case, receives a free discharge because he has completed sixteen or more years service. Such men are also required by the regulations to pay a sum of money to cover passage and travelling expenses.

On discharge this soldier was charged £12 19s. as a deposit in respect of his uniform including greatcoat which remained War Department property. Although he states that he returned the uniform, it has not been received, and the charge therefore stands. He drew the normal scale of civilian clothing issued to long-service soldiers on discharge.