§ 36. Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the pay of a lieutenant in the Royal Navy is less by £289 per annum than that of a married captain, corresponding rank, and £184 less than that of an unmarried captain in the Army, the pay of a lieutenant-commander less by £198 or £114 than that of a major, corresponding rank, and the pay of a commander £307 or £249 less than that of a lieutenant-colonel; if he can give any reason why the officers 646 of the senior Service are to be paid so much less than their comrades in the Army, and if this is done because of any real or fancied inferiority of the senior Service or because only rich men are sought for in the Navy; and if it is the intention to immediately level up the pay of the senior Service?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe figures given by my hon. and gallant Friend are apparently based upon comparisons between the emoluments of certain Army officers as published in the Appendix to the recent Army Order respecting the new Army Pay, and the minimum pay plus victualling allowance of the corresponding Naval ranks. Such comparisons are misleading, inasmuch as they take no account of the compensatory allowances granted to naval officers who are not accommodated or victualled; or of the fact that, normally, married allowances are only to be paid to Army officers of thirty years of age, and over; or of the allowances in the nature of full pay for which Naval officers are eligible. The ages at which the respective ranks are attained in the ordinary course in the two Services is also an important consideration. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a detailed comparative analysis of the rates of pay, Army and Navy, for his information
§ Sir B. FALLEDoes the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Army officer is better paid than the officer of the Navy?
§ Dr. MACNAMARASubject to what I have already said in the early part of my answer. The comparison made by my hon. and gallant Friend is based upon certain considerations, and I think is misleading.
§ Sir B. FALLEIf the Army officer is better paid than his cousin in the Navy does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the best men will forsake the Navy; and is it not desirable that the same rule should obtain at the Admiralty and the War Office, and so avoid the possibility of the best men in the future seeking a career in the Army and not in the Navy?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAPerhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will do me the favour to read the detailed analysis, he will then see whether he would like to put a further question.
§ Mr. BILLINGIs it not the fact that both these Services are better paid than the Members of this House?
§ 37. Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to. the Admiralty if he is aware that there are a few engineer commanders who reached the age of compulsory retirement before August, 1914, and were given the rank of engineer captains, and were still employed on the active list when War broke out, and who have only been given 15 per cent. bonus instead of 25 per cent.; And if he will inquire into this and have the matter put right?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThis matter is under consideration.
§ 38. Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that engineer commanders who reached the compulsory age for retirement during the War were entitled to the rank of engineer captain on reaching that age and to the same pay and bonus as recalled officers, but that this has not been done and these officers have received neither the rank which was their due nor the back pay; and if he will look into the matter and put it right?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe matter is engaging the attention of the Admiralty, but is one that requires careful investigation, as there may be cases in which treatment as a retired officer, "called out" would not be to the officer's advantage. It is hoped, however, to arrive shortly at a satisfactory settlement.