ROYAL NAVY (OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE) (Hansard, 13 December 1944)

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor (Paddington, South)
I very much regret, but I make no complaint at all, that there is no representative of the Admiralty to listen to what I have to say, because I fully realise the reason for it, that is, that the Business of the House has been dealt with so much more quickly than was anticipated. Every effort possible is being made to find the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply to me and I can only say we are all sorry he is not present.
I again raise the question of the naval officers' contributory marriage allowance scheme, in view of the fact that it is only in the case of naval officers that a contributory scheme is in operation. In the course of my remarks I shall show that the naval officer is being unjustly treated as compared with the officers of equivalent rank in the Army and Air Force. In answer to a Question which I put on 7th March, 1944, referring to naval officers having their basic rate of pay reduced by 2s. a day in the case of all officers reaching the rank of lieutenant-commander, whether married or unmarried, and in the case of commissioned warrant officers reaching the rank of lieutenant, by 1s. a day, my right hon. Friend stated that the rates of pay of the three Services were fixed in 1919 when the Army and Air Force received marriage allowance. The naval officer did not, but the naval rates were fixed at a somewhat higher level than would have been possible if marriage allowance had been granted. In other words, naval pay contained an element of marriage allowance prior to the introduction of the marriage allowance scheme in 1938. Accordingly, in 1938 it was publicly announced that it was necessary to subtract the element of marriage allowance already intimated in the pay of captains, commanders and lieutenant-commanders.
The Jerram Committee's report to the Admiralty in 1919, and whose recommendations for officers' pay were adopted, makes no reference whatever to the fact as stated by my right hon. Friend that these rates contained an element of mar- 1308 riage allowance. There is no reference whatever throughout the whole of the Jerram Committee's report to marriage allowance. I submit to my right hon. Friend that a comparison of the pay of the three Services in 1919–19 years before the naval officers' marriage allowance was introduced—is quite irrelevant. I would also draw attention to the fact that the pay of the naval officer in 1938, when marriage allowance was introduced, was not the same as in 1919, but was at a lower rate than it was in 1919. It had been reduced several times since 1919, as had pay in the other Services, so that to base the naval officers' marriage allowance scheme, and make it a contributory one, on the basis of the 1919 pay, was in my view an act of great injustice to the naval officer.
What is relevant is a comparison of the pay of the officers in the three Services in 1938, when the marriage allowance scheme for the Navy was introduced, in order to see what the pay of the naval officer was at that time. There is no more reason why the pay in 1919 should have been considered in 1938 than the pay in force in 1838 or any other date. The basic rates, before the reduction of 2s. a day in the case of the naval officer, and the equivalent ranks of the other Services was as follows: a lieutenant-commander in the Navy before the reduction of the 2s. a day received £1 7s. 2d. a day. A major in the Army, his equivalent rank, received £1 8s. 6d.; a squadron-leader, again the corresponding rank in the Air Force, received £1 10s. 10d. In 1919 a lieutenant-commander received £1 10s. a day. In 1938 a commander £1 16s. 2d. a day, a lieutenant-colonel, his equivalent in the Army, £2 3s. a day, and a wing-commander, the same as a commander—£1 16s. 2d. a day. In 1919 a commander received £2 a day. In 1938 a captain received £2 14s. 4d. The colonel received £2 9s. 10d., and the group-captain received £2 9s. 10d. also—these being the equivalent ranks in the other two Services. In 1919 the captain received £3 a day.
From this it will be seen that in 1938, when it was necessary to subtract the element of marriage allowance, already included in the pay of captains, commanders and lieutenant-commanders, in point of fact a lieutenant-commander was already paid 1s. 4d. a day less than 1309 a major and 3s. 8d. a day less than a squadron-leader—the equivalent ranks in the other Services. This difference, to the detriment of the naval officer, on his reduction by 2s. a day when marriage allowance was introduced, resulted in the discrepancy being increased against the naval officer by 3s. 4d. and 5s. 8d. a day respectively, compared to the officers in the other Services. A commander received 6s. 10d. less than a lieutenant-colonel and the same pay as a wing-coulmander—the equivalent ranks in the other Services. As a result of the reduction of 2s. a day when marriage allowance was introduced, the commander, therefore, received 8s. 10d. a day less than a lieutenant-colonel and 2s. a day less than a wing-commander—his equivalents in the other Services. A captain was better paid than a full colonel in the Army and than a wing-commander in the Air Force by 4s. 6d. a day, but by the reduction of 2s. a day the difference comes down to 2s. 6d. a day. From these figures it is clear how grossly underpaid is the naval officer of lieutenant-commander and commander's rank in comparison with the equivalent ranks in the other Services.
I ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that the officers of His Majesty's Navy should be worse paid than officers of equivalent rank in the Army and the Air Force. Does he consider that the service they render to the country and considering their rank and responsibilities to which we pay such lip service they are less deserving in the matter of pay than officers in the Army and Air Force. On 13th October, 1934, I asked my right hon. Friend the First Lord for the comparative rates of pay of these officers, and I have given the figures which were contained in his answer. To explain the differences in the rates for the three Services, he referred me to a reply which he gave to me on 16th June, 1938, which was as follows: Although the columns are set out above comparing officers of the same relative rank in the three Services, a matter of importance which must be borne in mind in contrasting the rates of emoluments is the age at which these are attained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1938; Vol. 337, c. 409.] From that statement, I naturally concluded that my right hon. Friend agreed that age was a factor to be taken into 1310 account in paying a naval officer. I would now ask him whether, if he happened to be 25 years of age, instead of, shall I say, 50, he would consider that his salary of £5,000 a year, plus an official residence, should be reduced because of his more tender age? Suppose a second William Pitt should arise, and become Prime Minister at 22, is it my right hon. Friend's opinion that he should receive considerably less than the emoluments attaching to the high position of a Prime Minister, because of his tender age? To make sure where my right hon. Friend stood in this matter, I asked him, on 25th October, 1944, to what extent the emoluments paid to naval officers are based on their responsibilities, in accordance with their rank or their age. His reply was: The emoluments of naval officers are related to rank. The responsibility attaching to any particular appointment is taken into consideration in deciding the rank of officer who should fill it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 158.] That is a very satisfactory reply, and it kills the red herring, and most unjust basis, of age in relation to the pay of a naval officer. He is, of course, paid in accordance with his rank and responsibilities; and I hope that never again will any representative of the Admiralty refer to the age of an officer in this respect. Another result of this naval officer's contributory marriage allowance scheme is the amazing and startling fact that all officers from the rank of lieutenant-commander to that of commodore, second class—that is, of course, the rank immediately below a rear-admiral—under the revised scheme applicable to all three Services, after deducting the 2s. contribution which these officers pay towards the marriage allowance scheme, are in this position. My right hon. Friend may say that it is not correct that they contribute 2s. a day; but they have their pay reduced by 2s. a day, and it is a contribution.
For a wife and one child, each of these officers from lieut.-commander to commodore, second class, receives £1 8s. a week; whilst an ordinary seaman with a wife and one child receives £2 4s. a week, a leading seaman with a wife and one child receives £1 17s. a week, and a petty officer with a wife and one child receives £1 16s. 6d. a week. These sums do not include the men's allotments to their wives. Therefore, all these officers receive 1311 from 8s. 6d. to 16s. a week less for a wife and one child than men serving with them on the lower deck. I am not complaining about what the men receive—far from it; although I might, in passing, remark that if it is necessary for these men to receive marriage allowance on such a high scale it is definite proof that they are grossly underpaid as seamen. What I wish to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to is that this is a most invidious and unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Again, naval officers are not on the same basis as officers in the Army and the Air Force, in that they receive marriage allowance only when they are living apart from their wives. If husband and wife are living in the same house there is no marriage allowance. But officers in the Army and Air Force receive the allowance whether they are living with their wives or not. Another injustice to the naval officer is that he does not receive both marriage allowance and lodging allowance at the same time, where such a payment is applicable. In the other two Services they receive both allowances. Why this discrimination? No admiral receives marriage allowance. I am not arguing whether an admiral should or not, but generals do, and I presume that senior officers in the Air Force do, also. There are three very great differences in the application of the payment of marriage allowances in the three Services.
I trust that my right hon. Friend the First Lord, after what I have said, to show the discrepancies and the injustices of the marriage allowance and the less pay which naval officers receive in comparison with officers of equivalent rank in the other Services, will have the matter reconsidered, and that on the Naval Estimates he will be able to announce that these injustices have been removed, that naval officers have been placed on the same basis as officers of equivalent rank in the other Services, that the 2s. a day will be restored, and that in all respects in this question of basic rate of pay and marriage allowance the officers of the three Services will be placed on an equality.

§ The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington)
I must begin by apologising to my hon. and gallant Friend and to the House, for not being present at the beginning of his speech. The Debate 1312 came on a little earlier than I had expected. I must also pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for the long efforts which he has made over the case which he has put this afternoon. He believes that, in respect of marriage allowance, the naval officer is badly treated in comparison with officers of the other Services, and he has pursued this crusade for a very long time, by questions, by letters, and now by raising the issue on the Adjournment. All honour should be paid to him for the efforts he has made. At the same time, as I hope to show, I do not believe that the case which he has made will stand the full examination which ought to be given to it if the truth is to be seen. He has referred to some figures which have been given by the Admiralty on past occasions, and which refer back to 1919. Without referring back to that year it is not possible to obtain a true picture. When the pay was fixed in 1919 there was taken into consideration, so far as the Navy was concerned, the fact that the marriage allowance element should be included in the pay.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
Will my hon. and gallant Friend quote the authority for that?

§ Captain Pilkington
I was about to come to that very point. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the Jerram Committee in 1919 made no reference whatever to this element of marriage allowance being included in the pay. But there was another Committee—the Halsey Committee—in the same year, who said that they did not recommend the marriage allowance, but that there should be adequate rates of pay for all officers, single or married.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
The Halsey Committee—which was a sub-committee of the Jerram Committee—dealt with half-pay and pensions. The Jerram Committee dealt with full pay. There was nothing in the Halsey Committee's recommendations about full pay of officers. I read every word of the report of the Jerram Committee yesterday, to make quite sure that I was not mistaken.

§ Captain Pilkington
That may well be so. I said that the Jerram Committee did not deal with this matter but that the Halsey Committee did, and in this case, it is the Halsey Committee which is referred to.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
Which dealt with pensions.

§ Captain Pilkington
If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the Halsey Report he will see that it does make this statement—that they did not recommend a marriage allowance, but did recommend a level of pay adequate for an officer, whether he was single or married. It is for that reason that, for a number of years, the Navy did not have a marriage allowance for naval officers. From time to time suggestions were made that such an allowance should, in fact, be made, and, finally, in 1938, the case was made again for instituting a marriage allowance for the Navy and it was passed; but what I want to emphasise is that it was passed at that time not because it was felt that the pay which a naval officer was receiving was inadequate, whether he was married or single, but because there was one aspect of the matter which was felt to be unfair, and that aspect of the affair was this. When a naval officer was serving afloat, he had obviously to keep up a separate accommodation for his family, and he had no allowance made to him for that, whereas an allowance was made for officers serving in the other Services. It was primarily upon that fact that the arrangements for a marriage allowance in 1938 did go through.
Now we come—and this is in the same year, 1938—to the vexed question which the hon. and gallant Member has pursued with such tenacity——

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
Before my hon. and gallant Friend leaves that point, may I suggest to him that the advantage of a marriage allowance is negatived when the officer is ashore, because he is not allowed to receive both the marriage allowance and the lodging allowance?

§ Captain Pilkington
Yes, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will have patience, I am coming to that point, though not at this stage of my speech. I am dealing with his first point, that is, the rate of marriage allowance, taking into consideration what he describes as the 2s. cut in 1938. I was saying that he has pursued this question with great tenacity, but he does not, if I may say so, give it a really fair description when he describes it as a cut of 2s. and leaves it at that. My hon. and gallant Friend is ignoring the fact that, in 1919, this element of a marriage allowance was then included in 1314 the pay, and if, in 1938, we were going to institute a completely new marriage allowance, it was only fair and obvious that the marriage allowance element hitherto included in the pay should be deducted.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but this is very important. I would like to know what the authority was, since the Halsey Committee was not dealing with the pay of serving officers, which caused the Jerram Committee to reach their conclusions.

§ Captain Pilkington
I think I have dealt almost exhaustively with the extent to which these two Committees dealt with this question. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the Jerram Committee did not refer to it, but the Halsey Committee did, and I have also said that, as has been said in this House on a previous occasion, the rates of pay in 1919 were made on the assumption that this marriage allowance was, in fact, included in the pay; so that, when, in 1938, a proper marriage allowance was instituted, that element which had hitherto been present in the pay had to be subtracted. It was subtracted from the pay of captains, commanders, and lieutenant-commanders and on a graduated basis for officers commissioned from warrant rank. As was also made plain in the Debate on that occasion, if, in fact, the Admiralty had tried to secure this marriage allowance without making the deduction of 2s., it would not have gone through, for, as I submit to the House, the reasonable causes which I have suggested. At the same time, I should say that the naval officers who would be affected in 1938 by this cut were asked by the Admiralty for their reaction, and, although naturally nobody likes having a cut, for whatever reason, made in his pay, the general fairness of the cut was recognised and it was accepted.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
Very few officers were asked.

§ Captain Pilkington
Well, a sample of the officers at that time was taken, and it was considered by the Admiralty, who thought that it would benefit the Service as a whole if a marriage allowance was instituted. In 1942, a uniform allowance for all three Services was instituted, and it is hoped that that will remove some of the anomalies which are, I know, felt to exist by my hon. and gallant Friend.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
What has a uniform allowance in all three Services got to do with a marriage allowance?

§ Captain Pilkington
I was referring to a uniform marriage allowance. I have been dealing hitherto with the marriage allowance which was instituted in 1938, and I say that in January, 1942, a fresh plan of marriage allowance was introduced which will ultimately take effect, although, of course, at the present moment, those officers on a marriage allowance are on the 1938 scheme.
I now come to the second point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and that is the question of the payment of marriage allowance and the payment of lodging allowance. My hon. and gallant Friend has said that the naval officer is penalised in that he does not get the allowance paid to him unless he is keeping up two establishments. I think I should say exactly what the position is under half a dozen broad headings into which the naval officers concerned may be grouped. If a naval officer is living in official quarters with his wife he gets neither the marriage allowance nor the lodging allowance. If a naval officer is living in official quarters, and his family is living elsewhere, then he gets the marriage allowance in order to maintain his family. If he is living in his own quarters, with his wife, then he gets the lodging allowance, because he has to pay the cost of his lodging.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
But he does not get the marriage allowance.

§ Captain Pilkington
If he is living in his own quarters, perhaps in a remote part of the country, and has to maintain a second establishment for the rest of his family, he gets both the lodging allowance and the marriage allowance. Finally, if he is serving afloat, he gets marriage allowance. That, I should have thought, was a fair enough arrangement. The principle behind it is that if a serving officer has an establishment to keep up, then the Government contributes towards it. If he has not, then they do not. If we did not have this arrangement, and a marriage allowance was paid irrespective of what accommodation the naval officer had to find, we should get into a series of anomalies in which there might be one naval officer having to maintain, out of his own pocket, two different establishments, and another officer, of exactly 1316 the same rank, getting the same allowance but living with his family in accommodation supplied by the Government, and that would obviously be unfair on the first officer.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
That is what happens in the Army and the Royal Air Force.

§ Captain Pilkington
One cannot compare the three Services completely like that. The naval officer serves afloat, whereas neither of the other two Services do. There is another aspect, and an equally important one. The marriage allowance and lodging allowance are treated as being necessary for the maintenance of a home. They are not treated merely as a payment for the fact of a man being married. The contention of my hon. and gallant Friend is that that is wrong and that officers should have a marriage allowance if they are married, and he puts the question of accommodation aside. The great drawback to that is, that if there was a marriage allowance paid as such, it would be taxed under the law as it now stands, and if my hon. and gallant Friend's plan was adopted, although it would benefit a minority of officers who are serving ashore, it would penalise the majority of officers serving afloat.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
The 2s. is already taken off the pay of an officer, and, if the marriage allowance, in addition, is to be subject to Income Tax at 10s. in the £, then that would take the other 2s., and the result would be that the officer would be no better off than before the marriage allowance was instituted, since the whole of the 4s. would disappear.

§ Captain Pilkington
I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's arithmetic in this case. It has been very carefully looked into, and I say to him that, if his plan was adopted, the vast majority of naval officers would suffer. The Admiralty have been into this question with some care and that is the conclusion to which we have come. I have tried to deal with the two points which my hon. and gallant Friend has made. This discussion to-day is part of a long tussle which he has had with the Admiralty, but, if it is of any comfort to him, I can say that it may be that, as a result of some of the anomalies which must, I think, arise during war, and as a result of war time conditions, the whole question of Service 1317 pay, not only in the Navy, but in the other Services too, may well have to be reviewed, and I can assure him that his arguments will be taken into account if and when that is done.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend, but may I ask him if he will deal with the question of naval officers receiving less pay than officers of equivalent rank in the other Services?

§ Captain Pilkington
Yes, I certainly will. I would also thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his kindness in intimating, before the Debate, one or two of the questions which he thought he might raise. The point which he has made concerns the reason why officers in the Navy of a similar rank to those in the other Services receive less pay. Again, we have to go back to the early years. My hon. and gallant Friend asks why. It is because that was when the pay was instituted. It may have been changed since then, but it was built up on what was instituted after the last war, and the fact was taken into account at that time that promotion in the Navy was faster and was obtained at an earlier age than in the other two Services. My hon. and gallant Friend made the point in his speech that he hoped he would never hear that particular argument again from the Government, and, in reply to a question which he asked in the House the other day, he was told that pay depended on rank and not upon age. I submit that that is in no way a contradiction of the fact that when the level of pay was primarily instituted, it was instituted on the basis that the serving officer in the Navy obtained the comparative rank at an earlier age than 1318 did the officers in the other two Services. That does not alter the effect of the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend that, at the present time, pay must depend upon the rank attained by the officer in question.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down there is one more point I would like him to explain, and that is why a naval officer is deprived of the lodging allowance.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot make another series of speeches after the Minister has replied.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not explained why an officer is not allowed the lodging and marriage allowance. There is no connection between the two things, because they are given to the officer for totally different purposes, the one because Service quarters are not provided, and the other because he is married.

§ Captain Pilkington
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my speech, he will find that I dealt with that point when dealing with the question of marriage and lodging allowance. He will see that they are treated together, and are given to the serving officer if he is expected, owing to the position he occupies, to keep two establishments which he and his wife occupy apart.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
That is no answer.