HC Deb 18 July 1922 vol 156 cc1937-47

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £4,499,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £1,023,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

I desire to call attention to the case of a number of seamen and pensioners who were engaged in a civil capacity at the Greenwich Hospital School before the War. When the War broke out all men who were naval pensioners were called up for service with the Navy, and this was done under the Naval Coast Volunteers Act, 1853. As this Act, which is a short one, has a very important bearing upon my case, I crave leave of the House to read it It is entitled "An Act for the Establishment of a Body of Naval Coast Volunteers and for the temporary transfer to the Navy in case of need of seafaring men employed in other public services." The date is 15th August, 1853. Section 16 states: Whenever any emergency shall arise which in the opinion of the Lord High Admiral or Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral renders it advisable to require the services in Her Majesty's Navy of any of the persons who may have served as petty officers, or seamen in Her Majesty's Navy, and may be in receipt of pensions for such service, it shall be lawful for such Lord High Admiral or Commissioners to order any of such persons to join Her Majesty's Navy, and those so ordered shall join such of Her Majesty's ships or vessels of war as the said Lord High Admiral or Commissioners may at any time or times direct, and shall form the crews or part of the crews of such ships or vessels, and shall continue to serve in Her Majesty's Navy during such time as such emergency may in the opinion of the said Lord High Admiral or Commissioners continue, and while so serving shall be entitled"— this is the point to which I wish to draw attention— to the same pay and allowances according to their respective ratings on board such ships or vessels, as officers in Her Majesty's Navy and men in Her Majesty's Navy entered for 10 years' continuous and general service, and shall also continue to receive their pensions. On the outbreak of War, for my purpose on the 2nd August, 1914, there were 23 naval pensioners engaged in a civil capacity at the Greenwich Hospital School. I think the House knows that the Greenwich Hospital School is a school for the education of boys belonging to men who have served in the Navy. These men were, under this particular Act, called up for active service. They went to their stations, and there they remained for a time. When they had been there a certain time, it dawned upon the Admiralty that these naval boys at the Greenwich Hospital School had no instructors, and they, therefore, thought it advisable to send back to Greenwich as instructors these seamen pensioners, and the school then became their War station. They were engaged on active service by doing duty at the Greenwich Hospital School. They remained there continuously, but when their pay was about to be received, it dawned upon them that they were not receiving the pay of active service ratings There was a difference between the pay of civilians and the pay of active service ratings, consequent upon the War, and there were various allowances and gratuities to which these men were entitled. Included amongst these 23 naval pensioners were four marines. These four marines appealed to their Marine Department and were placed upon naval ratings, naval pay and naval allowances, and continued so until the end of the War, until the Armistice. The remaining 19 men were not so treated, and they, therefore, came to the conclusion that they were not placed upon a proper and equitable basis.

These men made their appeal to the Admiralty, but their appeal was not allowed. Naturally, they continued to appeal, because they considered they had a grievance which should be remedied. They were not allowed any other position or occupation. They were not allowed to be demobilised Had they been placed in an ordinary free position, or had they been taken on as naval ratings in the ordinary active way they might have been sent to some ship or station and might have been engaged actively in the War and have obtained promotion, with additional pay and pension, but they were kept at the Greenwich Hospital School. I want to emphasise the fact that this is a naval school. As the War was prolonged these boys were growing up into men, and it was very important for the Service, and particularly for the Navy, that the boys should be instructed particularly in the requirements of the Navy, so that should the War last, as unfortunately it did last some time, they might gradually become competent and be able to take up their positions in the Navy. When you consider the cases of these men it must be realised that they were not there altogether in a civil capacity. They were ordered there. They first went to their depots, and they were then sent to the school as their War station, and there they remained.

A good deal of discussion arose, and in the year 1918 the following letter was addressed to the Admiral Superintendent of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, in which Department these men were serving:

"Admiralty.

2nd May, 1918.

To the Admiral President,

Royal Naval College, Greenwich, S.E.

I am to inform you that their Lordships have had under consideration the position of the Seamen Pensioner Instructors at the Greenwich Naval Hospital School and have decided that these men are to be regarded as serving at their War stations, and are accordingly to be remobilised as from the 1st January, 1918. A list of the men concerned is attached.

By Command of their Lordships,

(Signed) For Secretary of Admiralty."

That letter clearly shows that in 1918 their Lordships recognised that these men were at their War stations. If they were at their War stations in 1918 there can be no reasonable argument to contest the fact that they must have been there in 1914, when the War broke out. As and from that date these men were treated as naval active ratings. The trouble that has arisen, and which I am putting to the Committee, is that these men between 1914 and 1918 were not properly treated. The men consider that they ought to have been placed on the basis of active service ratings, and ought to be entitled to the pay and emoluments of that position. I cannot conceive what objection there can be to this. I know that my right hon. Friend will say that they wore sent there by mistake. If by mistake these 19 seamen pensioners were sent to the school, were the four marine pensioners sent there by mistake. The four marine pensioners were recognised as active service ratings, and had that position, pay and emolument. It is a very irritating and annoying, not to say an unjust thing, that these four men should have the pay and position of active service ratings, and that the other men, serving side by side with them, in exactly the same position, should be denied their proper pay and position. I know the difficulty of my right hon. Friend. He is always very good, and the Admiralty are always very good with their men, and they know my feelings in regard to that matter. I have never been able to say that they have treated men unfairly on any actual facts, but I can quite imagine that behind the Admiralty we have to meet the Treasury—an excellent institution, which at times takes it into its head to be economical. Economy ought not to be practised at the expense of these men.

There are three years during which these men claim that they must have pay, emoluments and pensions on active service ratings. I now make a proposal to my right hon. Friend which I hope he will consider fair and which I hope he will put to the Treasury as a reasonable proposition which might be very fairly met. He knows that the pay of these men during the period in question would represent a very large sum which, especially in these hard times, would be a very great amount to pay over. I think it would amount to something like £9,000. I suggest, on behalf of these men, that it would be an act of justice and equity if they simply ask to be paid pension only for war service, and do away with the claim for balance of pay. That is a very fair proposition, and if my right hon. Friend can see his way clear to put the case on that basis to the Treasury I think justice will be done for these men. That course will be advisable instead of leaving a bad sore, as it is at the present time. Unfortunately, one of the men has died. If my right hon. Friend can see his way clear to advise the Treasury to pay these pensions it will not amount to a large sum, and it will do justice to a body of men who consider that they have a grievance.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

I want to mention the question of compensation under the schemes by which officers and men are allowed to retire from the Royal Navy. I refer particularly to the case of the schemes of retirement affecting Warrant officers, Royal Navy and commissioned officers promoted from that rank. These men are quite satisfied with the schemes generally, but desire to point out some defects. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that, under Article 37, taken in conjunction with Article 38, it is provided that the new age of retirement is 50 years for the majority of officers promoted to and from Warrant rank, instead of 55 as heretofore, and therefore five years' employed time will be lost to officers who will continue to serve in His Majesty's Navy. Many officers who will be compulsorily retired under Article 38 have already earned the maximum pension of their rank, and if they had been permitted to serve until the age of 55, the majority would have attained the rank of lieutenant; but this step is now denied them without any compensation for loss of rank and of pension sustained. With regard to Article 39, many officers, by reason of age and the advantages accruing under the scheme, are impelled to apply to retire voluntarily. A large proportion of these officers have already earned the maximum pension of their rank. In consequence, two years' additional service added to their seniority for the purpose of commuting retired pay is of no value.

In regard to Articles 37 and 39, officers who, by reason of their domestic responsibilities or for any other reason, do not apply to retire, or those officers who do apply to retire under Article 39 and are not permitted to do so, will, in future, be compulsorily retired on reaching the age of 50. According to a recent statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary these officers will receive no compensation for five years' loss of employed time. Both cases are unfair, and the latter is accentuated by refusal of pension to retire as provided by Article 48. In the latter case it may be presumed that it is considered necessary to retain the services of those officers or that officers permitted to retire have prior claim. Article 45 perpetuates a distinct and unfair anomaly which is difficult to understand. By Article 41 of A.M.O. 2483A/19, and subsequent Orders, only separation allowances, now regarded as marriage allowances, of naval ratings were to be the subject of further consideration in the light of the course taken by the cost of living, and are revised annually until a fixed minima is reached, whereas both pay and retired pay of officers were to be subject to revision up to 20 per cent. in 1924 and subsequent years, but were denied the grant of marriage allowance granted to their subordinates. Under Article 45, the retired pay of officers who retire under the scheme is subject to revision of 20 per cent. either upwards or downwards on the 1st July, 1924, and subsequently, whereas under Article 23 the basic rates of pension of ratings who revert to pension under A.F.O. 1359/22 are not subject to reductions up to 20 per cent. as in the case of officers. Articles 38 and 39 have created a distinct anomaly which affects a few officers of various classes.

For instance, consider how a lieutenant promoted from commissioned officer from warrant rank, if he be over 50 years of age, is affected, and how a lieutenant promoted from commissioned officer from warrant rank is also affected, if under 50 years of age. The senior officers will be retired compulsorily with the retired pay of lieutenant which they would have earned if they had remained in the Service until they were 55 years of age, plus the maximum gratuity of £500, while the latter would only receive the retired pay earned plus two years' additional service added for the purpose of commuting their retired rank. The effect of these Orders is that, in order to obtain a maximum pension, officers must be promoted prior to reaching the age of 50. The maximum rates of pay are obtained after 19 years' complete service after obtaining these ranks, and in both these cases, that is practically impossible for any class owing to the age of promotion. Promotion in future must be earlier, or the increment rates of pay ought to be altered to meet the new ages of retirement. I am not in any way opposing the compensation scheme. It is most generous in every way, but I am pointing out certain defects which, if not changed quickly, may act in a way which is different from the way which the Admiralty desire.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I will stand only for two minutes in the way of the next Vote, which provides a wider field of discussion. We have only a handful of Members present when these Estimates are being discussed, but we are used to that. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will look into the question of the payment of prize money—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery)

Prize money does not come under this Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I submit that it does.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member, on a point of Order, will tell me where it is.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I cannot find it anywhere else This is for non-effective services, and surely includes the payment of prize money, which is a non-effective service. The particular question to which I wish to draw the attention of the Admiralty is the hardship suffered by pensioners—

Mr. AMERY

On a point of Order—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

If I might finish my point of Order, I wish to refer particularly to the case of pensioners.

Mr. AMERY

On this Vote there are the actual payments by the Admiralty for non-effective services. Prize money comes from other sources, and not from Admiralty votes.

Mr. MALONE

This is a point which I was about to raise. The real hardship is caused by the delay in paying prize money to the men who come under this Vote, the pensioners and the old people. We are not raising the general policy of prize money at all. That, I know, would come under another Vote. The particular case which we are raising is the question of delay in paying prize money to the old pensioners, while going on paying it to the men who are getting full pay and full rank. The case of hardship which we want—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

We are dealing with money rather than with individuals. That had better be taken on the next Vote.

Mr. AMERY

I wish to reply briefly as to the particular grievance of the seamen pensioners at the Naval School, Greenwich. The circumstances of the case are these. These naval pensioners, and the whole body of naval pensioners, were called up and mobilised on the outbreak of War. Three weeks later all those pensioners, whose services were not required for war purposes, were again demobilised and reverted to their civilian occupation. Many of them went to work at munitions and in various other civil capacities. These particular men went back to their civilian occupation as I nstructors at the hospital school at Greenwich. Undoubtedly, by teaching the boys who were afterwards to become members of His Majesty's Forces, they contributed to the general efficiency of His Majesty's Service, but it was purely civilian work. It also happens that by an oversight the Adjutant-General of Royal Marines was not informed of this demobilisation and four marine pensioners, who were also teachers at Greenwich Hospital, went back to teach and were never demobilised and went on drawing, what they were not entitled to draw, their money as being on active service. This was not discovered until the year 1917, and the question then arose what should be done with these four men. At that time, perhaps owing to the kindheartedness and generosity of the First Lord of the Admiralty, it was decided instead of demobilising these men to re-mobilise again, from the 1st January, 1918, the seamen class, to relieve them of any possible sense of grievance. They had no claim whatever to be re-mobilised. It was a very special concession made to them. Those seamen pensioners now claim that they should receive full active service pay for the period during which they were not mobilised, and that their pension should be increased on the assumption that they had been on active service during the whole of this period.

I am afraid that, however generous our disposition might be, we have no legal power under which the Treasury could agree to make this concession. They have been very fortunate in getting what they did. It is true that four marioes are still more fortunate. I am afraid that we cannot take that money back, but their exceptional good fortune is due to the fact that they were overlooked for three years in the stress of war. I am afraid that that constitutes no reason for giving an equal increment of good fortune to those seamen pensioners. I believe that it is put forward—I do not know how far my hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) sustains the argument—that under the Act of 1853 to which he referred, the Admiralty were bound at once to mobilise these men and keep them mobilised till the end of the War. I am afraid, looking at the Act of 1853, that that contention could not be sustained—that the Admiralty could demobilise no one until hostilities were officially at an end. I quite sympathise with the feelings of men who realise that next door there are four men who do the same work as themselves, and secure higher pay and afterwards higher pensions, in consequence of an oversight, but I am afraid that it is impossible to remedy a grievance which extends to everyone, who has not been the recipient of a lucky windfall and that they will have to be content with the good fortune of this concession, by which they were mobilised from the 1st January, 1918, up to the Armistice.

I will now refer briefly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). He says, and I think that he is right in saying, that the scheme for retirement in the exceptional circumstances which was framed for the lower deck was a generous scheme. We were particularly anxious that there should be no feeling that the lower deck hands were treated less generously than the officers, and, judging by the figures already published, there can be no doubt that we achieved our object. Because I think that practically the whole of the reduction required—very nearly the whole of it, and I believe that when the returns come in from the foreign stations, the whole of it—will be found to have been secured in this brief space of time by voluntary retirement. That shows that the offer made was a generous one. Also I think that it will result in a very considerable economy, owing to the fact that the generosity of the offer has led to a very prompt acceptance of our terms, and therefore relieves the taxpayer of the expense of maintenance. But I agree with the hon. Member who raised certain points of detail, and I do not think that he will expect me to answer them in full detail.

It is very difficult to frame any scheme under which you do not get hard marginal cases. When we were faced with the problem of ascertaining the class of warrant officers and others to whom paragraphs 38 and 39 refer, we had to consider both the prospect individually, and the whole prospect of the branch, of promotion, and after very careful consideration we came to the conclusion that the fairest course all round to the individual, and, in the long run, the best course in the interest of the Service, was to bring down the age to 50, and to retire from the Service all those over 50, in that way giving much better prospects of promotion in future to younger men. But undoubtedly—and I do not sec how it could have been avoided—there are men who, in the natural course of events, will in a few years be 50, who had hoped to serve after 50, perhaps getting, after 50, promotion which they are not likely to get before 50, and some of those will, undoubtedly, see their prospects in the Service diminished by the lower age of retirement. It happened in certain branches of the officers' Service, in the Medical Service. It is true that there will be a compensating increased prospect of promotion for younger men in the same branch, but what I have said is true, and I admit it with regret. I have tried to look into the matter, and I do not see how the scheme could be altered so that that mischance can be remedied. There are some individuals in the Service whose chance of promotion in future are materially reduced by the fact that their future retiring age will be 50 instead of 55.

Sir T. BRAMSDON

I do not desire to controvert what my hon. Friend has said, but he will allow me to add, on behalf of these men, that they claim that they were not properly and legally demobilised, and that they were continued on at their War stations. Therefore, perhaps, he will consider the suggestion which I made.

Mr. AMERY

I do not hold out any prospect. The matter has been gone into, very fully, several times.

5.0 P.M.

Major Sir B. FALLE

I cannot allow my right hon. Friend to ride off on the idea that these officers and men have retired on generous terms. Many cases have been brought forward where these men have retired, not because they thought the terms were generous, but for very different reasons. In some cases the Admiralty's own schemes, such as the scheme for giving lieutenancies to Commissioned Warrants, have been blown away. These people are certainly not moved by the generosity of the Admiralty, but are disgusted with the terms they are compelled to accept.

Question put, and agreed to.