CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction on discontinuance on allotments of pay.) (Hansard, 2 April 1947)

§ Commander Noble
In the Second Reading Debate, I quoted the case of a man who wanted to stop the allotment to his wife, but who had still to go on paying while inquiries were being made. The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary gave me an assurance that in the event of the man being found to be right, that is to say, that he was entitled to stop his allotment, he would have refunded to him the allotments that he had to go on paying while the inquiries were being made. I hope very much that the Financial Secretary will be able to give us that assurance again tonight. On the other hand, I think we should know where that is to be laid down, otherwise than in HANSARD. I do not think one can expect men to know of that assurance if it is only in HANSARD. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether it will be placed in King's Regulations or the Appendix to the Navy List or wherever it may be.

Mr. Dugdale
I am very glad to be able to give that assurance once again. I appreciate the point that has been raised. A very large number of sailors, unfortunately, do not read HANSARD. I will see that the information is sent out 2174 to the Fleet by the best possible measures. Whether it will be by Admiralty general message or otherwise, remains to be seen. I will see that it gets the widest possible publicity, wider than it can get from perusal of HANSARD.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I am sorry to butt in on this friendly discussion across the Floor, but I was a little startled to hear what my hon. and gallant Friend said, and the reply of the Financial Secretary. This same point was raised during consideration of the Army Annual Bill. The question was raised by some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, of what would happen in the event of compulsory deductions continuing to be made from the pay of an officer or soldier, when it transpired subsequently that the wife was not deserving of his support, and the deduction had, in fact, been made contrary to the justice of the case. It was suggested that in such a case refunds should be made. I think that is precisely the case which we are now discussing with regard to naval personnel. If indeed the position is that refunds are to be made in the case of the Navy, it seems to me that it will be necessary also that refunds should be made in the case of the Army. The Secretary of State for War put up very strong arguments, which were accepted, why refunds should not be made in such cases. The arguments he put forward entirely convinced me and all hon. Members who heard them. I was rather surprised that the Financial Secretary had not been similarly briefed on this occasion and that he did not put up a similar argument to resist the suggestion that has been put to him. It may be that the circumstances in this case are different. I am afraid that either I must get some explanation from the Government on how the circumstances differ as between the Navy and the Army, or I must ask the Government for an assurance that they will discuss this matter with the Army and the Air Force, in order to make certain that all three Services are brought strictly into line.

Mr. Dugdale
I have taken the precaution of consulting my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and he confirms my opinion that it is perfectly proper that this should be done. What the other Services do, it is not for me to say, but there is no reason in law why we should not allow this course. I am so advised, 2175 not only by my advisers in, the Admiralty, but also by the Solicitor-General.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I would like to take the matter a little further. It is possible that stoppages might be continued in a case where, for instance, an order has been made as between the parties. I am not very conversant with divorce procedure. I think it is an order for alimony pendente lite. I hope the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong in using that expression. In that case the Court will order the husband, pending divorce proceedings, to maintain his wife. It may be ultimately that the wife is found not to be worthy of support and the divorce goes through and no alimony is ultimately payable by the husband. Nevertheless, the husband has no claim to be repaid that alimony from any source whatsoever.
A question I would like to ask either the Financial Secretary or the Solicitor-General is this: In such circumstances, how can the general practice in the Divorce Court be reconciled with Clause 2 of this Bill? It seems to me that the Admiralty would be in the somewhat ridiculous position of having to make a refund of money, which does not tally with the practice of the Court, and either the officer or the sailor will get preference over all other classes of His Majesty's subjects or else some special provision will have to be made to deal with the money. May I have an answer?

§ Commander Noble
I think that in the case we are discussing tonight it is not a question of a compulsory stoppage from the pay but the man's own allotment to which we are referring.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
It is a compulsory stoppage.

§ Commander Noble
It is his allotment, which he cannot stop without the permission of his commanding officer, and it is not really compulsory maintenance stopped from his pay.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
It I cannot have any answer to my question, may I, at least, have the assurance that the Financial Secretary will draw the attention of his colleagues in the War Office and the Air Ministry to the question which has been raised during the Debate with a view to 2176 ensuring that the three Services deal with this matter similarly?

Mr. Dugdale
Certainly I will bring this matter to the attention of my colleagues, though it is not for me to say what they they will do. However, I am perfectly willing to draw their attention to it. I think that the hon. Gentleman can rest satisfied that the course which we are taking is perfectly correct in law.

§ Mr. J. P. L. Thomas (Hereford)
As I was unavoidably absent from the Second Reading Debate, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words to the House now. I do not want to detain the House or to get between the Financial Secretary and the desire, which, knowing his nature, I am sure he feels, to propose a vote of thanks to the hon. and gallant Members behind me and also to the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), for the help they have given in improving this Bill. The idea behind this Bill was a good one in that it brought help and security to the wives and families of officers and men in the Royal Navy, but how much has this Bill been improved by the Committee stage. Many of the Amendments showed how hastily the Bill had been drafted. If it had not been for the penetrating eyes of back benchers behind me and opposite, there would have been no provision for the right of a man to be present in court for the hearing of his own case or to be represented there by his legal representative. It seems incredible that the Bill should have left the Admiralty without that provision and that Section 98 of the Naval Discipline Act should have been withdrawn without including in this Bill a safeguard for this particular right of the man concerned. It should not have been left to hon. Members in all quarters of this House, except on the Government Front Bench, 2177 to see that such an obvious omission was corrected. My hon. and gallant Friends behind me have succeeded also in obtaining an Amendment from the Financial Secretary which has transferred from some vague Order in Council of the future to this Bill itself the limits of the liability of a man in such a case as this Bill envisages. That is a very notable achievement, especially in view of the Government's infatuation for Orders in Council, but I was rather distressed that the Financial Secretary should have said that this follows on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. We like in this House to see the Navy in the vanguard of Whitehall, and not trailing along in the wake of the other Services.
In future I think the House is entitled to have an explanatory memorandum attached to complicated Bills of this kind. Not only would it be of immense help to hon. Members, but we are entitled to expect it as a matter of courtesy. I also share the hope expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Colonel Lipton) on the Second Reading that the day may come when those complicated and patchwork methods in all the three Services will be co-ordinated by the Minister of Defence. Apart from these few criticisms, we are all glad to have been able to take part in this Bill, and we wish it well. It is a useful Bill, and, I think, well worth bringing forward to this House, especially with the additions which have been made to it in the Committee stage.

§ Major Bruce (Portsmouth, North)
I should like to give a final word of blessing to this Bill, as one who has had some opportunity, in conjunction with my colleagues and hon. Gentlemen opposite, of making a fairly devoted study of it. I was sorry that in the proceedings in Committee the Financial Secretary was not able to agree to a request that I made to include a further measure of protection for a limited class of persons. I thought he could have done it. I did not think his explanation at all satisfactory. I did not think that he went into an explanation of his rejection of our suggestions in any detail, and while thinking that this Bill is excellent in scope, and overflowing with very excellent functions in giving some measure of protection to the wives of naval officers and naval 2178 ratings who are entitled to it. I think it could have been considerably improved by the introduction of my former suggestion. As is always the case in matters of this kind, the general improvements which one wants to put—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
I am sorry, but the hon. and gallant Member is not, of course, entitled to deal with what might or might not be in the Bill; he is only entitled to deal with the Bill as it appears before the House now.

§ Major Bruce
The Bill as it appears before the House, and subject to the reservations I have already made, is a very satisfactory one indeed, and I should like to thank the Financial Secretary for bringing it forward.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest and Christchurch)
The Financial Secretary on the Second Reading made two speeches. I would like to quote one small passage in each of the speeches he made. In opening, he said: It is most important that we should work in step with them. I understand, though naturally I cannot speak for either of those other Departments, that corresponding legislation for the Army and the R.A.F. will be amended in certain respects in their Annual Bills. Therefore, that will bring the three Services into line. He concluded by saying: While I was considering this Bill, I sometimes thought that I wished I was introducing, let us say the Electricity Nationalisation Bill which seemed to me to be much more simple."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 680–692.] Well, if I may say so, if any Bill of a major nature had been introduced which suffered so much change during the Committee stage, the hon. Gentleman would have found himself out of a job. This Bill lays down certain principles. With those principles we on this side of the House are agreed, but it has been necessary during the different stages of this Bill to introduce so many Amendments that, as it now stands, the Bill which we are now discussing on the Third Reading bears little, if any, resemblance in detail to the Measure we discussed on Second Reading. We have been able to improve what was an obvious hotch-potch of legislation, something rushed through and introduced on the Floor of the House in an enormous hurry. We have made it 2179 into something which will really do some good. How any Government could have come to this House—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I have given the hon. and gallant Member a great deal of latitude. He is not dealing with the Bill as it now stands. He is dealing with the Bill as it came into the House originally. That is quite out of Order on Third Reading.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was trying to show what the Bill is now. If I may take it the reverse way, the Bill for instance now has the safeguard of Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Act, which it did not have when it was first introduced. How did it come about that the Bill was introduced without that safeguard?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. and gallant Member must abide by my Ruling, or I must ask him to resume his seat.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I have gone beyond your Ruling. I would only say that the Bill, as it now stands, is something which we on this side of the House can welcome. It is something which we think will do some good, and we can only hope that the next time we get a naval Bill, it will not be necessary to make so many changes between the Second Reading and the Third Reading.