HC Deb 16 March 1939 vol 345 cc771-82

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £17,540,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c, of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940.

11.50 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby

I am sorry to detain the Committee, but this is the only certain opportunity which a Member has of raising the question of marriage allowances in the Navy. We had hoped that we would have been able to raise it on the Supplementary Estimates last year, but owing to the fact that the Opposition did not see fit to ask for that particular Vote, the opportunity never arose when the question could be raised again, and this is the first opportunity to put the two points that I should like to put to the representative of the Admiralty. I do not wish to go over again in detail the whole question of the marriage allowance paid to the naval officer or the injustice that undoubtedly exists in the way the marriage allowance was arrived at, but there are two points regarding it to which I should like the Financial Secretary to give consideration, and possibly on the Report stage he may be able to do something to help. The rates of pay of officers in the three Services have been compared. The comparison was neither a fair nor just one, because the officers were compared not at ranks but at ages. In making that comparison the naval officers' pay was computed at so much actual pay in cash and so much value for accommodation—lighting, heating, mess, etc.—and, in order to arrive at a figure at which to compare him with his confreres in the other two Services, a figure of roughly £100 was taken as the value to him of his accommodation. On the total figure of his emolument it was decided that he should be cut 2s. per day. When a naval officer goes to a shore job, the Admiralty recognises that part of his emolument is the accommodation with which they ought to provide him, and they say that because they cannot so provide him, they will give him in lieu a lodging allowance. When it is desired to compute his pay the figure of the value of his accommodation is taken to be £100, but when it is decided to pay him cash in lieu, then all that the Admiralty pay him is £80. His pay has been cut 2s. to contribute to his own marriage allowance. If he is appointed to the Admiralty he is not allowed to receive his £80 lodging allowance, which was part of his total emolument, at the same time that he receives the marriage allowance.

That is grossly unjust and it is deeply felt. Naval officers cannot express their opinions, by reason of the conditions of their service, and the opportunity should be taken in the House to represent that it is a grievance that should be redressed. The whole question of the marriage allowance bristles with anomalies. I wonder how many Members realise that it is not paid until the age of 30, and that an officer is cut 2s. in the rank that he is about to hold. On promotion from lieut.-commander to commander, and from commander to captain, he is cut 2s. To give a case of the absurdity of the present system: the late Lord Beatty, who was promoted for meritorious service from lieut.-commander to commander, and within a short time promoted for meritorious service to captain at the age of 29, would, under this scheme, which is supposed, by the Financial Secretary, to be so just and equitable, have been mulcted in each of the successive ranks 2s. a day, and at the end would not have been entitled to any marriage allowance if he had been married below the age of 30.

There is another point which I want the Financial Secretary to remedy. I understand that on applying for marriage allowance an officer in the Navy has to produce his marriage certificate and the birth certificates of his children. Considering that the regulations demand that before an officer marries he shall acquaint the Admiralty of his intention, and that the Income Tax authorities—and nobody can say they do not probe into the private affairs of the citizen—do not ask for marriage or birth certificates, the Admiralty might cease to insult naval officers by singling them out as the only people who, when they apply for marriage or child allowance, shall produce these certificates.

With regard to widow's pensions, I understand that they have never been altered with the times. When the rise in officer's pay took place after the War I believe the scale of these pensions was not increased. The Jerram Committee recommended that pensions for widows should be one-third of the officer's pension, and that was one of the reasons why the Committee recommended that marriage allowances should not be paid to officers. The present pension is a very small sum to give to the widows of officers who die in action or while in the Service, and I would ask the Financial Secretary to see whether it can be increased.

11.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew

At the time the marriage allowance was introduced last year, one of the main reasons why the Admiralty responded to the demand which had been repeatedly made was that in the other two fighting services there was in one form or another some kind of marriage allowance, although in no other service of the Crown is any such differentiation made between the emoluments of bachelors and married officers. They are paid solely what their services are considered to be worth and they have to decide for themselves whether they can afford to get married. In the naval service, whether an officer is stationed in England, in a home depot, or living in a ship, he does not have to undertake any greater responsibility because is is married than an officer in any other branch of the service of the Crown. It has been stated that an officer who has to live on board has double expenditure to meet because he has to pay his mess bills and also his household expenses on shore. But when it is taken into account that the cost of an officer's messing on board ship is not high, but in fact is remarkably low, I do not think that that case can really be substantiated.

At the present time I think it could be said with truth that in the average officers' mess afloat the cost of an officer's messing need not be more than 25s. a week. That compares very favourably with what an officer living the whole time in his home ashore might expect to spend on living there, on food and the other items that make up his mess bill. But when, due to the exigencies of the Service, an officer appointed to serve on a foreign station finds himself in the position of having to move his household out to that foreign station, there he is placed at a disadvantage as compared with those who, in other branches of the service under the Crown, find that they are employed more or less in the same place all the time. I think, therefore, there is a strong case for some kind of allowance being paid to an officer because of the expense of having to move his home for the time being to some place abroad.

The way in which the Admiralty chose to pay the particular form of marriage allowance that was introduced last year was by way of a deduction of 2s. a day from the pay of all officers, bachelors included, in order to provide the greater part of a fund from which the allowance could be paid. I submit that that was a wholly unjust method of finding the money, that if a marriage allowance was to be granted, the whole charge ought to have come from the Treasury, and that there ought to have been no pool at all into which officers were forced to contribute in order to provide the funds for it. I would prefer that the present system that I have indicated should be abolished and that there should be substituted for it an allowance which should be payable when an officer is appointed to a foreign station and intimates, through the proper Service channels, that he intends to move his home out to that foreign station. In that case I consider that the passage of his wife and children, if he has any, ought to be paid out there and once back home again to England, at the end of, or at any other time during, the commission—once back—and that there should be added a reasonable sum for any extra baggage that they might wish to take because they were moving their home out there for a number of years. I believe that by that method, rather than by an actual monetary premium on marriage itself, you would bring real justice to officers who are caused extra expense through their being married and having to move their home out abroad in the service of the Admiralty.

12.4 a.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

I wanted to make a speech on the question of the marriage allowance this evening, and I propose now to continue the speech which was interrupted during the general Debate. In the table set out in the Official Report in May, 1938, showing the comparative pay and allowances for married officers of equal rank in the three Services living with their families but not victualled or accommodated, in a footnote it states that a matter of importance which must be borne in mind in contrasting the rates of emoluments is the age at which these are attained. I deplore the Admiralty's attitude in this matter, and I would stress the injustice of the principle here stated by the Admiralty of depriving a naval officer of his rank and the responsibilities that go with it, and ignoring the naval officer's just claim to be paid in accordance with his rank and responsibilities.

This scheme is, in fact, a bachelor tax. Many naval officers have no private means; in many cases they have to contribute to the upkeep of their parents and homes, which they can do only by considerable self-denial and careful expenditure. They cannot afford to marry, and yet all these bachelor officers have their pay reduced by 2s. a day. A bachelor tax is imposed in industry in order to provide greater pay for the married employés would not commend itself—certainly not to the trade unions or to the nation at large. What justification is there for imposing a bachelor tax on naval officers?

Let us compare the pay and marriage allowance of the naval officer with those of the other two Services, remembering that there is a consolidated rate of pay for the officers in the Army and the Royal Air Force, irrespective of children. In the case of the naval officer there is a basic rate for marriage, plus an additional allowance for each child of 2s. a day, towards the cost of this bachelor tax. Take the case of the lieutenant-commander and compare it with that of the major and the squadron-leader, officers of the same rank in the other two Services. I will take them as all of the same age. The lieutenant-commander gets £691 16s. 8d. including allowances for lodging and marriage. The major gets £760 as pay and allowances. Here we have the married major, receiving £69 a year more than the lieutenant-commander of the same rank and age. In order that these two officers may be receiving the same pay and allowances the lieutenant-commander has to have three children. Take the two officers with two establishments, and of the same age. The lieu-tenant-commander at sea gets £80 a year for cabin allowance and a total of £708; the major, separated by service from his wife, gets £821 a year, a difference of £113. The major gets more than the lieutenant-commander, unless the lieutenant-commander has five children. That is rather a lot of leeway for the naval officer to have to make up in order that his pay and allowances may be the same as those of the officer in the Army.

Compare the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-commander with those of a squadron-leader. A lieutenant-commander between the ages of 34 and 37 gets £658 a year; a squadron-leader whose age is between 29 and 33, gets £803 a year. The squadron-leader receives £145 a year more than the lieutenant-commander, and in this case, in order that the lieutenant-commander may receive the same pay and allowances as the squadron-leader, he would have to have a quiverful of children—seven.

Mr. J. J. Davidson

Why not?

Vice-Admiral Taylor

I said that when he had five children he had a lot of leeway to make up, but there is nothing in my vocabulary adequate to describe his position with seven children. These are all facts, and though they may be regarded as rather amusing they do show the immense disadvantages of the naval officer under this marriage allowance scheme. If these two officers have to keep up two establishments their positions compare as follow: Lieutenant-commander, £674 a year; squadron-leader, £863. There is a difference of £189. The naval officer would have to have not a quiverful of children but a whole basket full before he could get the same sum as the squadron-leader. From these figures the Parliamentary Secretary must realise how disadvantageous is the position of the naval officer as compared with the Army or Air Force officer. The Admiralty have failed to achieve what they started to do, and that was to secure parity of remuneration in the three Services.

The next case I will submit is that of a married naval officer appointed for shore service, where no accommodation is provided. To justify granting to this officer marriage allowance only and not marriage allowance and lodging allowance the Parliamentary Secretary uses this argument. This is what he said in answer to a question of mine on 30th March, 1938: The general basis of the marriage allowance scheme is that officers in appointments in which they are necessarily separated from their families shall be placed in as good a financial position as those in appointments in which they draw lodging allowance and can live with their families."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 30th March, 1938, col. 1987, vol. 333.] Therefore, these officers would be placed in a better position than married officers where quarters are provided if they received both marriage allowance and lodging allowance. My answer to that is that on 25th May, 1938, the First Lord of the Admiralty said in answer to a Question of mine: The value placed upon ship accommodation for an officer is the estimate of the expense to him of replacing that accommodation when it is not available. In the case of a single officer this expense is estimated at £80 a year for lieutenant-commanders, namely, the amount of his lodging allowance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1938, col. 1190, vol. 336.] From that statement it is fair to assume that in the pay and the allowances of that naval officer account is taken of this £80 a year for ship accommodation, and the naval officer is therefore receiving less pay in cash than he would receive if there was no accommodation provided for him, and that in order to compensate him for the loss of the value of his cabin accommodation on board when he takes up an appointment on shore where no accommodation is provided for him he draws £80 a year in cash to provide himself with it. I am considering the case of the married officer taking up a shore appointment where there is no accommodation provided for him, from a ship appointment where there is; he is entitled to £80 a year in place of the ship's accommodation, just as much as the bachelor officer. Both lose the value of their ship accommodation and are equal to receive the £80, but, under the marriage allowance scheme, the married officer is not entitled to draw the £80. He is deprived of it. What justification is there for that? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to justify it.

I am going to give the details of this marriage allowance scheme where no accommodation is provided. It is very important because there is gross injustice to naval officers. The lieutenant-commander receives in pay and allowances £689 a year. Under the scheme in which he receives marriage allowance only, but not lodging allowance, he receives £655 a year. He would, therefore, lose £34 a year, unless the Admiralty took steps to see that he did not lose it. They have had to do something to get over that difficulty. Here is what they did: If the married officer is childless, the Admiralty, in order to make up the £34 which they have taken from him, give him an extra allowance of 2s. a day. He then gets £36 a year. This childless officer benefits to the extent of £2 2s. 6d. a year.

I will come to the question of the married officer with one child, for which he receives 2s. a day, if it is the first child, that is £36 a year. The Admiralty have taken away £34, so this officer receives exactly the same as the childless officer. That is all that the marriage allowance does for him. In appointments of this sort the marriage allowance does not benefit the naval officer at all unless he has more than one child, and then he benefits by £20 a year, for two children. In the White Paper the Admiralty are undoubtedly correct in saying that under this part of the scheme no officer will, by being married, at any time be worse off in consequence of the change, but that statement is a poor commentary on the marriage allowance. This scheme was based on a low allowance rate on marriage plus an additional allowance for each child, so that in effect the child allowance is a very important part of the scheme, and a married officer with one child should in equity receive at all times £36 10s. a year more than the childless officer, in this case he does not; he has been deprived by the Admiralty of what is due to him. While it is true that the married officer is paid the £36 10s. for his first child, the Admiralty have deprived him of £34 so that he only receives the balance. It is impossible to understand how such treatment can be justified. This is a very sore point with married officers, and there is a good deal of dissatisfaction about it. The Admiralty will not receive written complaints from married officers about the scheme, so it is no argument to say that they have received no complaints or that 100 per cent, of the married officers have joined the scheme. Of course they have; if they do not they lose 2S. a day in pay. In some circumstances with several children they gain fairly considerably, but in others they do not.

I want also to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will do something with regard to removal allowances for naval officers. They now get a removal allowance when they take up an appointment on shore, but at no other time, whereas in the Army and the Royal Air Force officers get removal allowance and disturbance allowance on every occasion whey they move their house. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, every ship has a home port, to which she goes when she refits. She sometimes go there for the purpose of giving leave, but it is while the ship is refitting that she is longest in port. Therefore, naval officers provide a home for their wives and families at their home port. I have been given a case where a naval officer who had been married nine years had seven removals during that time, and in only two of those cases would he come under this scheme of removal allowance. Another, who was married in 1932, also had to move seven times, and only on three occasions would he receive removal allowance under the scheme. If an officer is appointed to a ship whose home port is, say, Portsmouth, and if the home port of his next ship is Plymouth or Chatham, he has to remove his family and belongings to Plymouth or Chatham if he wishes to see as much as possible of his wife and family. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to go into this matter.

We want the same sort of treatment for all three Services. We are not getting it for the naval officer in the removal allowance. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make a comparison between the three services—and the Civil Service—and see how disadvantageous it is for the naval officer under the marriage allowance scheme. We are spending an immense sum on rearmaments and getting all the material that is required. But personnel is more important than material. I am not basing my claim on the plea that unless something is done in respect of the marriage allowance, the naval officer will not give of his best for the service. He always will—he always has—whether he suffers any injustice or not. I am putting forward the claim for the naval officer simply and solely on the basis of justice and I trust that the points I have raised will be given due consideration by the Admiralty.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

12.27 a.m.

Mr. Shakespeare

This is a very complicated question. I do not complain that my hon. and gallant Friend has raised it. Because of circumstances over which none of us had any control last year, there was no time for lengthy discussion. It is very difficult for me at this late hour to take in all the facts of the case, and I should like to read my hon. and gallant Friend's speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am not sure whether I shall be in order on Monday in replying. But the scheme of the marriage allowance is not immutable. We are from time to time making concessions where they are justified. But one cannot accept anything which strikes at the root of the whole principle. Therefore, I could not accept the suggestion that, in addition to receiving the marriage allowance, the officer should keep his lodging allowance. The complaint never came from the officers when on shore. The real hardship for the officers was that when they were at sea they had nothing for the maintenance of their wives and children at home. That is where the shoe pinches. [Interruption.] I cannot expect my hon. and gallant Friend to agree, but 70 per cent. of the officers have had material help.

On the second point which my hon. and gallant Friend raised, I will certainly look into the matter, and if I cannot reply on Monday, the hon. and gallant Member can put a Question down, or I will write him a letter. I will certainly give my personal attention to it. On the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew), he will appreciate that for the first time we gave a great concession to the officer on his appointment, namely, the option of either having travelling allowance for wife and children, or alternatively, if it suits him better, his wife can stay at home and look after the children and he can have the double allowance.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew

On what principle was the travelling allowance restricted to officers going to a shore appointment?

Mr. Shakespeare

It may be for three, four or five years, and he may be sent to China and come back to the Mediterranean or anywhere, and it is quite impossible really to make the scheme other than in relation to shore service. Having said that, I will look into the point raised. I am very sympathetic; I do want to help. I cannot accept anything which goes in any way fundamentally against the scheme, but I do want to say, in conclu- sion, that this scheme has been appreciated by naval officers and, quite apart from what they contribute over and above that, it has meant a cost to the Treasury of £361,000—an amount which is a clear gain to the married officers concerned.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

The hon. Gentleman admits that 70 per cent. of the officers have benefited. I was present in the House when the Minister stated, in reply to a Question, that no officer would be worse off as a result of this scheme. If, in fact, an officer is worse off under the scheme, will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to remedy that?

Mr. Shakespeare

I will certainly look into it, but no married officer can be worse off, and the great bulk are better off.