HC Deb 21 July 1920 vol 186 cc2076-9
Major HORE BELISHA

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

I do so for the purpose of asking a question. Under this Clause the Government have power to make deductions from the pay of seamen, marines, soldiers and men of the Royal Air Force. I am credibly informed that the Government in another connection intend to make a reduction in, or take a deduction from, the pay of these persons. I want to know if the Government have considered the effect of this Clause upon the Services. I have already pointed out that an officer's widow gets a pension at a very high rate without any such deductions being made, and this proposal seems to put the naval rating and the ordinary soldier and airman in a much worse position than they occupied before. Already that position is very unfair. The Naval Estimates show that officers' widows have considerable pensions, and that they receive those pensions in any circumstances where they are left destitute. Widows of men only get pensions where the men have been killed under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Frequently where there is a disaster the officer's widow gets a pension and the widow of the ordinary naval rating or serving soldier does not get a pension, although both are concerned in exactly the same accident.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to second the Amendment.

I agree with the greater part of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. We ought to know where we are in regard to the widows of soldiers, sailors and airmen. I refer to the lower deck in the Navy and the rank and file of the Army. I cannot, however, support my hon. and gallant Friend when he speaks of the pensions paid to officers' widows as being very high. Officers' widows are entitled to a meagre pension but it has always been suggested that these pensions are compensation for the fact that the pay of the naval officer is low. It is better now than formerly but in the past it was extraordinarily low and those who heard the hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Vice-Admiral Sir A. Henniker-Hughan) speak on the Naval Estimates will recollect that he made this point and he showed that as midshipmen, we had the princely pay of 1s. 6d. a day out of which we had to pay messing allowance, uniform, and pay our naval instructor as well. In those days we were always told to remember that when we got married there was a pension of so much for officers' widows—although the Admiralty did their utmost to discourage naval officers from getting married. I think it is right to say that the pensions paid to officers' widows are not high.

Major HORE-BELISHA

They do not contribute.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

They do contribute. We are always told that pensions are only deferred pay. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, however, with regard to petty officers, leading seamen, bluejackets, stokers, private soldiers and others, whose wives at present do not get pensions. They may be killed, or they may die in the service of the Crown and get nothing. What is to be their position in relation to this Bill? If these amounts are to be deducted from the pay of the Services, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if anything will be done in the case, for instance, of a bluejacket who is killed in an accident where the lifeboat has been called out. I have known of men who were killed in such circumstances, and their wives and families got nothing at all.

Captain GARRO-JONES

I desire to advance one further point in support of the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friends. The pay of these soldiers is already subject to so many deductions that it has been found necessary in the Army Pay Warrant to provide that they must be left with at least 1d. per day or some such sum. Any further deductions are liable to deprive soldiers even of the paltry sum which is now left to them. It would be a splendid thing if the hon. Gentleman could accept the proposal of my hon. and gallant Friends.

Sir K. WOOD

I would point out that the proposal of the hon. and gallant Members is the deletion of Clause 16, and I do not think any Members of the Committee would desire that to be done. I quite understand, however, the motive and purpose of the hon. and gallant Members in raising this matter. They have voiced this afternoon various grievances which I have heard from time to time in connection with the persons in whom they are interested in the Navy and the armed forces of the Crown, but these matters are not appropriate to this particular Bill. Questions of the kind which have been raised should, as I said the other day, be addressed to another Minister. We are dealing here with a Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, and all we are asking, under this particular Clause, is that, inasmuch as we are including persons in the Services in the same manner and to the same extent as others, there shall be paid the same contributions. Apart from the grievances raised by the hon. and gallant Members—with which I sympathise, in so far as I am aware of them—this is not an unreasonable proposition.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Will they get the benefits?

Sir K. WOOD

Certainly. As regards the case which the hon. and gallant Member put to me, in that particular case, the widow under this Bill would get a pension. No doubt the hon. and gallant-Gentleman has achieved his purpose by once again raising his voice on behalf of many of his constituents. But the subject, I suggest, is not particularly material to this Clause, and I hope he will now allow us to obtain the Clause which confers many benefits on many people in whom the hon. and gallant Member is interested. I said on the last occasion when this matter was discussed that if representations on these matters were made to the First Lord of the Admiralty, I had no doubt the First Lord would deal with them when he was in a position to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.