§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)The Royal Marines are engaged for twelve years, and can then be re-engaged for a further period of nine years. Before the War the statutory authority for retaining men after the expiration of either of these terms of engagement was Section 5 of the Royal Marines Act of 1847, part of which read:—
Provided that if either the first or second term of limited service for which any Marine shall have so engaged shall expire while he is serving on any foreign station, the said first or second term of limited service may be prolonged for such further time, not exceeding two years, as shall be directed by the Commanding Officer on such foreign station.
§ Commander BELLAIRSWill the right hon. Gentleman read the whole of that Section?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am sorry I cannot do that. I have only this extract. In November, 1911, Parliament passed the Royal Marines Act, 1914, which extended the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1847 to enable us to hold to extended service for a period of two years all Marines wherever they might be serving. The law, therefore, to-day is that the Act of 1847, amended by the Act of 1914, provides that Marines may be retained two years after their twelve years' engagement expires, and may be retained, 1546 if they re-engage, for two years after their twenty-one years have expired. It is now desired, through this Bill, to extend this still further.
§ Commander BELLAIRSAre those powers compulsory or are they at the option of the men themselves?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThey are compulsory during the War. It is desired to extend this to the men of both classes— that is to say, the men who have completed their first engagement for twelve years, and the men who have completed their further engagement for nine years— and it is proposed that they shall be liable to continue serving to the end of the War, wherever they may be serving. That is the Bill.
§ Colonel YATEWill they be given any bounty?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI am coming to the terms. As regards pay, the rates of pay and conditions of payment will not be affected. Since the Act of 1914 was passed detained pay of 2d. a day has already been extended to Marines under Regulations corresponding to those in force for seamen, and will still be payable during the extended service for which this Bill provides. As regards pension, this Bill will prevent men from being discharged to pension after serving twenty-one years plus the two years' further service provided for in the Act of 1914. If this Bill passes into law they will not be discharged to pension—unless the Board of Admiralty otherwise decide in any case —until the end of the War. This plan of deferring pension in the cases of extended service is already applicable to the Marines themselves for the two years' further service provided for in the Act of 1914, and to the sailors and soldiers. The King's Regulations, I should add, make provision for additions to pension in respect of the extended period of service. There is really nothing controversial in this little measure, which I commend to the House, fully assured that it will at once grant the extended powers now sought.
§ Commander BELLAIRSI am rather doubtful as to the powers which exist in respect of this measure. The difficulty which we experience in the House of Commons is that we get a Bill to amend the provisions of the Act of 1914, and, on going back to the previous enactment, we 1547 find nothing in it to explain the position, and we refer further back until we might go back to an Act for building Noah's Ark in order to get what we want before we can begin to interpret what is being proposed. I ventured to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in his speech because he did not read the w7hole of the Section. According to my reading of Sections 5 and 6—and I call the Attorney-General's attention to this—it is an option, to some extent, on the part of the men whether or not they shall reengage. The latter part of Section 5 of the Act of 1847 deals with the question of notice by the Marines. It is as follows:
And that any marine who shall give notice to his commanding officer, after completing his second term of limited service, that he is desirous of continuing in Her Majesty's Service as a marine, and being approved by his commanding officer, or other competent authority, may be continued in such service as a marine so long as he shall desire to be so continued, and until the expiration of three calendar months after he shall have given notice to his commanding officer of his wish to be discharged and for that purpose shall be considered in all respects during such time as if his term of service were still unexpired.Section 6 goes on to say:Provided also and be it enacted that if at the expiration of such first or second term of limited service, or of such term of prolonged service, any marine entitled to his discharge being on any foreign station shall not be willing to re-engage, or to continue in Her Majesty's Service, his commanding officer shall, as in the case of marines invalided, take the usual measures with all convenient dispatch for the conveyance of the marine to England, and on the arrival of such marine in England, he shall be finally discharged.If you want to make your intentions clear you should bring in a Bill declaring your intentions for the War only, instead of referring back to Acts in order to indicate what you want to do. Under the Act of 1847 the marines have certain rights which are not in any way removed by what you did in 1914, or by what you are doing now. I do not for one moment say that the Admiralty are not doing the right thing in claiming the services of these men. It is the right thing. It may 1548 be an injustice, but it is a necessary injustice to which the House is asked to give its assent; at the same time, I should like to say that you are doing this injustice to a corps which is unique almost, and which has never had any blot on it, and which always performed its duty even in the time of the Mutiny, when it succeeded, under Lord St. Vincent, in putting down the Mutiny. In 1755 Lord Anson got the corps established as a permanent force, and that great Admiral Lord St. Vincent said about them half a century later:In obtaining for them the distinction Royal, I but inefficiently did my duty. I never knew an appeal to them for honour, courage or loyalty that they did not more than realise my highest expectations. If the hour of real danger should come to England, they will be found the country's sheet anchor.I think the House ought to see that the Admiralty deals generously with these men who have been, probably, in some cases, twenty-three years in the Service. There is an additional reason why I make this appeal in that the Royal Marines during many years, with the exception of Sir John Colomb who died some years ago, have never had a representative in this House. In asking the House to consider the points I have mentioned, I support the Second Beading of the Bill.
§ Mr. HOHLERI think we are justly entitled to consider whether the conditions under which these extensions are made are fair to the Marines. I, for myself, protest against the notion that 2d. per day is adequate extra pay to a man who has served his country either for twelve years or for twenty-one years. In the great majority of cases those affected are married men, and supposing they are killed, as has happened in many cases by virtue of the extensions which have taken place, and as will happen probably again by virtue of the extensions under this Bill, the wives and children receive no benefit whatever, although the men have lost their lives under compulsory extension and with reward merely of 2d. per day. I ask for some undertaking from the Admiralty in respect of this matter, and that they will consider the giving of some greater advantage than that which they are now offering. I believe that the men would prefer that advantage in the form of an increased pension to their widows and children, but I do protest that 2d. per day is quite inadequate for men who are risking their lives, and that something more should be done. It is by no means a fair equivalent to that which 1549 we are giving men who work at home. There is another matter in which a certain number of these men have suffered grievously; I refer to those in the Royal Fleet Reserve who probably joined on the expiration of a first term of a limited engagement, and being called up at the commencement of the War, and having served, have been invalided from the Service with small pensions varying from £10 to £14. Some of those men have been called up again, and have been deprived of their pension, which seems to me to be a great injustice. There are cases where not only have they been deprived of the small pension, but they have been called upon to refund part of that which they have received. I do suggest that when we are proposing to extend the service of the Marines by this Bill, that we ought to see to it that everything that we do is fair and just to the men concerned. There is another class of man, the quartermaster-sergeant pensioner and the quartermaster-sergeant instructor, who have also been called up.
§ Mr. SPEAKERAre those Marines?
§ Mr. HOHLERYes, I am strictly confining myself to the Marines. Under Army Orders every man in the equivalent position in the Army gets the position of non-commissioned officer Class 2. For some reason or other the Admiralty refuse to extend that Regulation to quartermaster sergeants and quartermaster -instructors in the Royal Marines. When I tell the House that several of those men have lost their lives on various fronts on which they have been fighting, I do respectfully submit, more especially as it will cost the country nothing, that they ought to extend the benefit of that order to those men, so as to enable them to have the same advantages as are offered to noncommissioned officers in the Army holding similar rank. Let me refer to another very great injustice in regard to the Royal Marines. I doubt if any Members are aware that there are two bodies of the Marines: the Royal Marine Artillery and the Royal Marine Light Infantry. The Royal Marine Artillery is a comparatively small body as compared with that of the Royal Marine Light Infantry. Every first quartermaster in the Royal Marine Artillery has conferred upon him by virtue of power given to the Admiralty the position of honorary major. It can be conferred under Order in Council because the man holds a position of trust 1550 and responsibility. There are only three quartermasters in the Royal Marine Artillery, and the result is that they almost automatically obtain this step in their rank. In the Royal Marine Light Infantry there are three divisions and one depot, and only the first quartermaster in that body gets this step in promotion. There are twelve quartermasters in the Royal Marine Light Infantry as against three in the Royal Marine Artillery, and it seems a great injustice that the first quartermaster of each division and depot in the Royal Marine Light Infantry should not have a like appointment as the quartermaster-sergeant in the Royal Marine Artillery obtains.
4.0.P.M.
I submit that it is most unfair that the Royal Marine Light Infantry should be placed at a great disadvantage as compared with the Royal Marine Artillery. Another matter to which I should like to call attention is the position of the quartermasters. What the Admiralty are now doing will absolutely block promotion in the ranks.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThese topics are quite outside the Bill. As the hon, and learned Gentleman is aware, this Bill does not deal with any of these matters. It is a very limited Bill.
§ Mr. HOHLERI submit that it affects every man retained in the ranks under this Bill if all these matters are blocking promotion. Surely I am entitled on their behalf to argue that if this Bill goes through these matters should be remedied?
§ Mr. SPEAKERAll I can say is that if I were Chairman of the Committee before which this Bill appeared, and Amendments embodying the proposals of the hon. and learned Gentleman were placed on the Paper, I should rule them all out.
§ Mr. HOHLERI quite agree. But I submit that it is pertinent to the question to consider whether we should confer these powers upon the Admiralty in the Bill itself. I admit that I could not possibly raise these points in Committee. As far as I can see, my only method of raising them is as an argument in objection to the principle of the Bill. If you rule me out of order, of course, I will not say anything more on the subject.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI will not go so far as to stop the hon. and learned Gentleman. I would only point out that it does 1551 not seem to mc to be using the time of the House to the best advantage to raise a number of points which cannot be dealt with in the Bill.
§ Mr. HOHLERI will be very short. The difficulty is to find an opportunity of raising these matters. I can do nothing in Committee, but I think that if the attention of the Admiralty is drawn to these questions now more consideration will be given to them than would otherwise be the ease. With regard to the position of quartermasters, in normal times, under the Admiralty Regulations, quartermasters have to retire at the age of fifty-five. By virtue of the War they are continued in their position. I do not object to that. My point is that they ought to be put on a supernumerary basis so as to permit a steady flow of promotion in the ordinary course of things and the creation of fresh quarter-masters. I ask the Admiralty to consider these points and to do something to I improve the conditions of service under which these men were re-engaged.
§ Colonel YATEWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that these Marines who are kept on "are not given a bounty similar to that which is given in the Army? In the Army men who are compulsorily kept on are given bounties ranging from £12 or £15 up to £25. Why should the Marines be treated differently? Surely it is not fair to cut out the Marines from any grant of that sort. Such a bounty would be most welcome to these men, and would be of the greatest help to their wives and families. I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler). I hope that now attention has been called to the matter the pensions of these men will not be touched when they are called up for further service. There is nothing a man dislikes more than any stoppage of his pension. Give him anything extra you like, if he is called up again, but do not touch his pension.
§ Mr. WINGI should like to associate myself with what has been said by the last two speakers. I hope the Government will deal generously with these men, and by doing something in the way of bounty, pension, or otherwise, soften this enforced service as far as possible.
Mr. SHIRLEY BENNI wish to call attention to two points. The first is that men who joined the Royal Marines in olden days joined on the understanding that if they remained in the Service twenty-one years they could be kept on for an extra two years if on foreign service. If you keep them longer than two extra years, are' they not entitled to be put in exactly the same position as regards pensions as if the War was not in existence? Keep them on if you need them, but treat them as if they had completed their contract. Secondly, if men have served twelve years and are kept on for more than two years extra, will they have the option of continuing to serve until they have served twenty-one years so as to enable them to get pensions?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI can only speak again by leave of the House, but I shall be glad to reply to the points which have been raised. Naturally, on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, I should like to associate myself most cordially with the very high appreciation of this magnificent old corps expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bel-lairs). No words of his, and no words of mine, can adequately measure our indebtedness to this grand old corps. Whether by land or by sea they have always covered themselves with honour. My hon. and gallant Friend used the word "injustice." That is a harsh word. It is not injustice, but a war necessity, and it is borne with equal loyalty and devotion by sailor, by soldier, and by marine. We are asking nothing of the Marines that we have not had to ask from soldiers and sailors. My hon. and gallant Friend also doubted whether we were on safe ground in the method of procedure which we have adopted. There is a great deal to be said for his view that we should not refer back to the beginning of matters—that is, the Act of 1847—we should state all that happens on the face of the Statute itself. As regards the powers we are proposing to take, my hon. and gallant Friend will see that Section 5 of the Act of 1847 provides that if either the first or second term of limited service for which any Marine shall have so engaged shall expire while he is serving on any foreign station he may be kept on for a further two years; and the next Section, to which my hon. and gallant Friend particularly referred as giving the Marine some right or option, contains a phrase 1553 of which I do not think he quite gathered the full significance. It states:
Provided also … that if at the expiration of such first or second term of limited service, or of such term of prolonged service, any Marine entitled to his discharge being on any foreign station.…The Act of 1914 applied that to wherever the man was serving—not only on any foreign station but in home waters if necessary—and this Bill also applies it to wherever a man is serving. Therefore, I think we are on perfectly sound ground. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Holder) raised four points, three of which are not affected by this Bill, are not created by this Bill, and are purely matters of administration. Nevertheless, I make no complaint with respect to the questions he put. One of his points—that with regard to pensions—was pressed also by the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate). It is the same principle that is applied to soldiers and sailors. I must make that clear. There is nothing new in the application of this principle to the Marine. In any case I do not think the injustice is so real as it might seem. Supposing a man dies during the period of his extended service. If his service had not been extended, he would have had his pension. His service is extended, he dies, ho does not get his pension, and my hon. and gallant Friend says that clearly his wife is worsened. It is really not so unjust as it looks. In the one case the man would have had his pension after twenty-one years of service; his wife and he would have shared it. In the other case he and his wife are getting increased pay and she gets a separation allowance during the period. After his death, if the result of war operations, she gets twenty-six weeks' separation allowance and a widow's pension at the end of that period. I think that, in substance, there is really no injustice. With regard to the discontinuance of disability pensions, clearly if a man in receipt of a disability pension is taken on for further service, the reason for the disability pension disappears. We could not very well continue a disability pension to a fit man serving with the Colours. If he seeks to re-enter, we must assume that his disability has disappeared. My hon. Friend has in mind two cases where men in receipt of disability pensions were wrongly called up. It is not our practice to call 1554 up men who are disabled. In two cases men were called up, and, being passed as fit for service, their disability pensions were withdrawn. Since my hon. Friend called attention to the question I have gone into the matter further. We propose that these men should, if they wish, be discharged, and, if they so desire, be resurveyed with a view to resuming their pensions. The other point deals with the grant of warrant officer rank, Class II., to quartermaster-sergeants called up. In a good many cases they are carrying out the duties which carry the rank on active service. However, I will undertake to look into the matter afresh.Reference was also made to the grant of the honorary rank of major to senior quartermasters. My hon. and learned Friend asks that the rank should be given to the senior quartermaster at each Marine division and depot. The matter has been discussed on more than one occasion, but I will again give an undertaking that it shall be looked into. There is another Department that has to be consulted in this matter. I was also interested to hear the suggestion made that we should get rid of one difficulty in regard to quartermasters, particularly beyond the age of fifty-five, by treating them as supernumerary to the establishment. That is a point that shall be considered. In regard to the question of bounty mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton, and what my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Wing) said, it must be remembered that the Regulations affecting the Army and Navy, and Marines, the latter of whom are under the Navy for this purpose, are different. You cannot take out one particular item and say, "Look at this, the soldier has an advantage here, and why should not the Marines and the sailors have the same privileges?" You cannot do that; you must survey the whole field, and look at the matter broadly. There are various considerations which are makeweights, and although I cannot undertake to offer to give what the hon. Members ask, I must not be supposed to allow it to pass for one moment that these men are otherwise than fairly, reasonably, and equitably treated.
Mr. S. BENNMay I inquire if men who are kept on after the fourteen years will be allowed to complete their twenty-one years?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat, is a service matter. What my hon. Friends want to 1555 know is whether men who have engaged for twelve years will be allowed to continue after the War and stay till they have completed their twenty-one years. That would be subject to the exigencies of the Service. Subject to that, I imagine that where the case is a proper one men will be allowed to go forward and obtain a pension, but I am afraid that for the moment I cannot go beyond that.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]