PAY AND ALLOWANCES. (Hansard, 30 September 1941)

15. Miss Ward
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the decreases announced in allowances to certain ranks of officers commissioned after 1st January, 1942, he will reconsider the position at an early date?

§ 26. Mr. Craven-Ellis
asked the Secretary of State for War why, in the announcement regarding married Army officers' allowances, it was not made clear that the increase of allowance only referred to married officers under 30 years of age; and what is the justification for reducing the allowances of married officers over 30 years of age by 2s.?

§ Captain Margesson
Under the old system the rates of family lodging allowance payable to a married officer over 30 are based on rank without reference to the size of the family. It was felt, however, that the assumption underlying this system, namely, that the accommodation which an officer provides for his family varies according to his rank, was no longer valid under war conditions, and it was accordingly decided that the size of the family should in future be adopted as the sole basis for determining the rate of family lodging allowance. While it is true that under the new code there will be certain decreases in the allowances payable to officers over 30, it is by no means true that no officer over 30 will be eligible for an increase. For example, a lieutenant over 30 with two children will be eligible for an increase of 10s. fid. a week. Moreover, any officer already drawing the allowance at the old rates may continue on the old code, if he prefers it. The effect of the new code on officers both under and ever 30 was made perfectly clear in my answer of 9th September.

Miss Ward
Are the new Regulations acceptable to senior officers in the Service, or has my right hon. and gallant Friend succumbed to Treasury blandishments?

§ Captain Margesson
It is not in my nature to succumb to Treasury or any other blandishments.

§ Major Lyons
Is it not a fact that the officer now serving who becomes married after 1st January, 1942, will be put in a far worse position by the new Regulations?

§ Captain Margesson
I think my hon. and gallant Friend has a Question on that point for the next Sitting Day.

16. Miss Ward
asked the Secretary of State for War whether an increase in the pay of officers is still under consideration?

§ Captain Margesson
No, Sir. As I said in my reply of 9th September, for the unmarried officer I do not think the total of the pay and tax-free allowances are unreasonable, particularly having regard to the increased burdens and restrictions which are continuously being imposed on the rest of the community.

Miss Ward
My right hon. and gallant Friend has not quite answered the Question on the Order Paper as to whether the senior officers in the Service are still pressing for a revision of the rates of pay of officers, and what action he proposes to take if that is so.

§ Captain Margesson
I can answer that again in the way I did in my first reply, and say, "No, Sir."

§ Mr. Woodburn
Instead of considering increasing the pay of officers, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider a reduction of the cost of living for these officers in mess allowances, which cause most of the trouble?

§ Captain Margesson
I think I said in my reply of 9th September that that point was having close attention.

§ Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that the rations are now so liberal and good that there is no reason whatever for officers to supplement them in any way whatever?

Miss Ward
Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity or, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in an appropriate Debate.

§ 21. Mr. Tinker
asked the Secretary of State for War the allowances made for children of serving men of commissioned rank, non-commissioned rank and other members of the Army, respectively?

§ Captain Margesson
The rates of allowances for the families of other ranks were set out in detail in an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) on 9th October, 1940, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. So far as officers are concerned, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend (Miss Ward) and Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) on 9th September.

§ Mr. Tinker
Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

§ Captain Margesson
Yes, Sir.

§ 22. Mr. Lawson
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that when soldiers' wives and dependants claim consideration on the ground of hardship, their household circumstances are investigated by officers of the Assistance Board; that the officers report on such circumstances, but do not decide the question of hardship or amounts to be granted; whether he is aware that in fact the household means test is being applied to such soldiers' dependants without the exercise of the officer's discretion; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this?

§ The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley)
I have been asked to reply. I assume that the hon. Member's Question relates to applications for War Service grants. The officers of the Assistance Board are required to do no more than investigate and report the facts of each 443 case, and the decision rests with my Department, with the advice of the War Service Grants Advisory Committee. In deciding a case regard is had to the principles of the Determination of Needs Act, and to all the circumstances of the applicant.

	Officers.
Number of children.	New rates for all officers commissioned on or after 1st January 1942.	Old rates for officers under 30.	Other ranks.
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
One child	14	0	10	6	7	6
Two children	24	6	17	6	13	0
Each additional child.	7	0	—	4	0