§ 15. Captain Prescottasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that since the recent revision of pay and allowances, an airman who is married and without children and is in the highest paid R.A.F. trade rating (Group I), has to make a compulsory allotment of 1s. 9d. per day as opposed to 1s. 6d. per day previously; and whether, as the allowance in respect of the wife has not been increased, he will reduce the allotment to the previous figure of 1s. 6d. per day.
§ Sir A. SinclairI would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Reply given to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) on 18th May. As stated in that Reply the changes in the qualifying allotments are necessary to secure broad uniformity as between the three Services, and in no case where the allotment has been changed is there any reduction in the joint receipts of man and wife. Where the wife has a child or children there is in all cases an increase. For administrative reasons, the rates of qualifying allotment must be the same for airmen with childless wives as for other married airmen.
§ Captain PrescottDoes the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the answer given to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) is not satisfactory and that this matter is causing considerable dissatisfaction? Does the right hon. Gentleman also appreciate that the result of this regulation is that an R.A.F. man who is married and has no children will have less money himself, while his wife will obtain more money out of her husband's money and not from public funds?
§ Sir A. SinclairThis matter was fully explained in the White Paper, and it was available for debate in the House when the White Paper was debated. There was no expression of dissatisfaction then, and I have not received many representations about it.
§ Mr. McGovernIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing storm against the way the recent increases are being given, namely, by taking away from people who in many cases are getting no more than when this committee recommended to the Government?
§ Sir A. SinclairEverything is being done exactly in accordance with the White Paper which was brought before Parliament.
§ Mr. BowlesWhen did the Debate on the White Paper take place?
§ Mr. Walter EdwardsIs my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme discontent in the R.A.F. over this policy, and does he not agree that it is all the fault of the R.A.F. authorities in not having a compulsory allotment in common with the Army in the past?
§ Sir A. SinclairI think there is a great deal of force in the last observation of my hon. and gallant Friend, not that I think any fault was due to the Air Ministry. It is true that a different scale of allotment from that of the other two Services had become the practice in the R.A.F., and it was considered necessary —and I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend agrees with me—to bring the scales into conformity.
§ 18. Mr. Walter Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Air what adjustments have been made in the pay scales of the R.A.F. and W.A.A.F. personnel to correspond with those announced in the White Paper for other ranks in the Army.
§ Sir A. SinclairWith the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate these details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Following is the information:
§ The pay scale of the lowest paid trade group in the R.A.F. and W.A.A.F., namely, Group V, has been improved and a consequential amendment has been made in the scale of one other trade group, Group M. The changes are shown below:
723| — | Former Daily Rate. | New Daily Rate. | |||||||
| Airmen. | Airwomen. | Airmen. | Airwomen. | ||||||
| Group V. | s. | d. | s. | d. | s. | d. | s. | d. | |
| A.C.2 and A.C.W.2— | |||||||||
| on entry | … | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Over 6 months | … | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
| Over 12 months | … | 3 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| A.C.1 and A.C.W.1 | … | 4 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| L.A.C. and L.A.C.W. | … | 5 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| Over 3 years as L.A.C. or L.A.C.W. | … | 5 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Corporal | … | 5 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 10 |
| Over 4 years as Corporal | … | 6 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| GROUP M. | |||||||||
| A.C.2 and A.C.W.2 on entry | … | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Over 6 months | … | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
§ Another improvement is that, in cases where "reclassification" does not depend on a trade test, all aircraftmen and aircraftwomen will be reclassified as 1st class (A.C.I and A.C.W.I) after 2 years' service if they are recommended as suitable; similarly, all aircraftmen and aircraft-women will have a reasonable prospect of becoming leading aircraftmen and leading aircraftwomen within three years from date of entry.
§ 19. Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the recent changes in service pay were so badly announced that many of the higher rank and file were led to believe that the Government were acting generously in cases where no real concession was made; and whether, as the whole transaction is viewed by those concerned as misleading, he will see that in future the exact intentions of his Department on these matters are more accurately explained.
§ Sir A. SinclairAs regards pay, the recent White Paper made it clear that increases would be granted only to non-tradesmen, private soldiers and corresponding categories in the other Services.
As regards allowances, it was clearly stated that a substantial improvement would be made in the position of those men with families who were in the lower ranges of pay and that this would be achieved by an additional State contribution to family allowance which would diminish as the man's rate of pay, and consequently his qualifying allotment, increased. For other ranks on the highest 724 rates of pay, there would be no increase in the State contribution.
As regards officers, it was also clearly stated that the greatest assistance towards the discharge of family responsibilities would be provided where it was most needed, that is, in the lower paid ranges. The recent changes were therefore exactly described in the White Paper.
§ Sir G. FoxIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Air Force were misled by the headlines in the newspapers?
§ Sir A. SouthbyCan my right hon. Friend tell the House on what date the Debate on the White Paper to which he referred took place?
§ Sir A. SinclairI am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. I had in my mind the previous Debate. It is true that a Debate has not taken place since the White Paper was laid, but the Paper gives full information about these changes.
§ Mr. BowlesMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he went on to say that no objection was taken to the changes?
§ Sir A. SinclairI should have said that no objection was taken in this House.
§ Mr. BellengerIs the right hon. Gentleman aware—I am sure he must be—that over 90 per cent. of the R.A.F. are not on the lower rates of pay, and, therefore, the Air Ministry must have known, in issuing their statements, that the majority of the men would not qualify for the higher allowances.
§ Sir A. SinclairI am sure that the majority of the men who make qualifying allotments within these ranges of pay, make a higher qualifying allotment than that which they are asked to make under this new scheme. There is no ground for saying that the House has been misled by the White Paper or for suggesting that the newspapers were misled. The White Paper stated with absolute frankness that the scales of allotment will be on a similar basis in all three Services and will result for the most part in a reduction of the present scales, though there will be some increases in the R.A.F.
§ Mr. ShinwellNow that my right hon. Friend realises that there is discontent in the House, which reflects the feeling of a large number of men in the R.A.F., as exemplified in letters sent to Members, will he reconsider the whole position?
§ Sir A. SinclairNo, Sir, because I have so carefully considered it and because it has been the subject of so much patient consideration. If I may put the position briefly to my hon. Friend, the position is this. If the qualifying allotment of the R.A.F. was not to be brought into line with the Army allotment, we should have to do one of two things. We should either have to pay the wife less, which we think is undesirable, as wives of R.A.F. men would be receiving less than the wives of men similarly placed in the other two Services; or we should have to increase the basic pay of the men in the R.A.F., which would give them a higher basic rate than men in a similar position in the other Services.
§ Mr. BellengerThe right hon. Gentleman is attempting to give the impression to the House that the White Paper is accurate, and that the allowances in the R.A.F. are brought into line with those in the Army. That is not so. May I ask, therefore, whether we have any power to stop the right hon. Gentleman doing that?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt cannot be done by question and answer. It is a matter for debate.
§ Mr. DribergIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the situation, and in view of the fact that the Air Ministry has had to issue to its pay offices instructions that pay issues are to be restored to their former level forthwith—thus indicating the unsatisfactory nature of the position—I beg 726 to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
§ Sir A. SinclairThe hon. Member's suggestion is quite misleading.
§ 20. Sir G. Foxasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that corporals who are married without children and flight-sergeants who are married without children are having 6d. and 3d. a day, respectively, compulsorily deducted from their pay for the increased allotment to their wives without the wives getting any corresponding increases in their allowances; and whether he will reconsider the recent changes in pay of which complaint is made.
§ Sir A. SinclairI am aware that some corporals and some flight-sergeants who are married without children are to have an additional 6d. and 3d. a day respectively deducted from their pay but the wives will get the full benefit of these increased allotments. As was stated in the reply to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) by my right hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State on 18th May, changes in qualifying allotments are necessary to secure broad uniformity as between the three Services and for administrative reasons the rates of qualifying allotment must be the same for airmen with childless wives as for other married airmen.
§ Sir G. FoxIs my right hon. Friend aware that the wives are not getting this benefit? How long is this state of affairs likely to continue?
§ Sir A. SinclairThe wives are getting the benefit. There will be some delay in making the payments. That brings me to the question which was put by an hon. Gentleman opposite. The men will not be asked to make a larger deduction from their pay in respect of the qualifying allotment, until the wives get the cash under the new scheme.
§ Mr. GallacherIs the Minister aware that this House was represented at a conference of Ministers at which there was no proposal for the elimination of the qualifying allotment, and that there was never any suggestion about any of the allotment being increased?
§ Sir A. SinclairIt was clearly stated in the White Paper.
§ Mr. Bellengerrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerWe cannot have further questions or it will become a Debate.