NAVAL ORDNANCE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT (CONDITIONS) (Hansard, 21 November 1945)

§ Lieut. -Commander Clark Hutchison (Edinburgh, West)
The subject I wish to raise tonight is one on which I have been a correspondence with the Admiralty for the past 18 months and which, in tact, I raised in the Debate on the Navy Estimates last March. It concerns the question of the pay and allowances of the permanent officers of the Naval Ordnance Inspection Department, and I want to stress the word "permanent" because the remarks I am making tonight refer only to those officers who underwent a certain course of training and who are permanently attached to that particular Department, and my observations do not apply to the very consider able number of officers who have been attached to it temporarily during the period of the war.
For the benefit of those Members who were not in the House when I raised the matter on the Debate on the Navy Estimates, I would like to explain very briefly the functions of this Department and the duties of the officers whose case I am putting forward. The Inspection Department has two main functions. First, it has to undertake the inspection of new manufacture of weapons and armament stores produced by the engineering works in this country for service in the Navy, and secondly, the officers and staff of the Department have duties to perform in chocking the alignment of guns and surveying; of ammunition for ships in the Fleet when the ships come in for dock yard refit.
The need of the Department is, I think, quite obvious, because it is necessary to have an Inspection Service to prevent unstable explosives being sent to sea and stored in ships' magazines, and hon. Members who are interested in naval affairs will recall in the war of 1914–18 a number of disasters such as the blowing up of the "Vanguard" and the "Natal" through, defective ammunition being stored in those ships. The Department has the duty of ensuring that the armament stores produced from factories and munition works are serviceable and effi- 514 cient weapons for use in the Fleet. It stands to reason, therefore, that the responsibilities of the officers and staff of this Department are very great indeed and the numbers of people employed in this work during the period of the war is very considerable, running into tens of thousands of civilian inspectors. The inspection work is generally carried out by civilians, both male and female, but the administration and technical supervision lies in the hands of officers of the Navy and of the Royal Marines, and these officers are all experts in torpedo, gunnery, submarine and engineering work. Of the permanent staff there are only 70 to 80 officers, although a considerable number of temporary officers were taken on in addition for the period of the war.
The charter or conditions of service under which these officers entered this Department is given in Admiralty Fleet Order 2078/31. It is a very lengthy-Order and I will not attempt to quote it to the House, but there is one sentence in it which is really the key to the whole situation, and which I must read, and that is this sentence which refers to the Tables of Pay: The above rates of pay will be comparable to the standard (1919) rates of pay of officers on the active list, and will be subject to similar variations as the latter rates. I would ask the House and the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, who is, I understand, to reply, to take particular notice of that one sentence because that is really the key to the whole position— the question of the pay of inspection officers varying according to the pay of the officers on the active list. When I raised this matter on the Navy Estimates last March, I pointed out that today there was in fact really no resemblance at all between the pay of the active list officers and that of the inspection officers and I gave figures which I expect my hon. and gallant Friend will have noted. They appear in c. 2093 of HANSARD of 7th March, 1945.
I gave figures showing that in the case of captains, to take one example, the active service captains or some retired captains called up for the period of the war were receiving in net income almost twice as much remuneration as was a captain in the Inspection Service who had very great responsibilities, and I under stand these figures are not really challenged by the Admiralty. The reasons for the 515 disparity are several. First, the fact that the officers in the Ordnance Inspection Department do not receive the tax-free marriage allowance, nor do they receive the tax-free children's allowance payable to those other officers, the retired officers called up or active list officers. Further more, the naval officers and marine officers in the Inspection Department are not eligible to receive the war service increment laid down in the White Paper Command 6553, yet, again, although the officers in the Inspection Service do get a certain victualling allowance they do not get the current rate of victualling allowance given to the active service officers which is at a higher rate than that of the inspection officers. Finally the officers of the Naval Officers Inspection Department do not get the war gratuity on retirement, which I think is rather hard. At that time Captain Pilkington was the Civil Lord and he replied to the Debate. I call the attention of the Financial Secretary to Captain Pilkington's observations on 7th March, one sentence of which I will quote. Referring to my argument he said: At the same time, my hon. and gallant Friend made a very strong case, and we will look into it and see if anything can be done." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 2178.] I talked to the former Civil Lord on several occasions subsequent to the Debate and before the advent of the General Election, inquiring as to what progress was being made in remedying this injustice. I was given to understand in a general way that he was hopeful that some improvements might be made. Then there came the General Election, the dissolution of Parliament and, naturally, a gap when nothing could be done. However, after the new Parliament was elected and the new Government formed, I felt it appropriate to pursue this matter further, so I wrote to the First Lord of the Admiralty about the middle of August and I received from him in reply a letter dated 27th August, which I do not need to quote, but which mentioned that a small number of the senior posts in the Naval Ordnance Inspection Department had been upgraded: that is, the salaries of some of the most senior officers in the Department had been raised. That, of course, was quite satisfactory for the half-dozen or so officers affected, and one does not despise a little progress in that direction, but it left the great mass of the 516 officers no better off than they were before and, I regret to say, the First Lord made no attempt in his letter to reply to the very numerous points which I put forward on this whole question during the Debate on the Naval Estimates, and also in correspondence prior to that.
I feel that action is necessary and, indeed, is imperative in this matter be cause this comparatively small body of officers have a just grievance. I submit that according to the terms of their conditions of service in Admiralty Fleet Order 2073 of 1931, they have a grievance in that the terms of that Fleet Order about their pay varying according to that of active list officers is not being observed. Therefore I put forward the specific request to the Admiralty, through the Financial Secretary, that marriage allowance should be payable to these officers and that children's allowance should be payable to them. Further more, I ask that the victualling allowance paid to them should be on the same scale as that paid to any other naval officer, and not on a lower scale as it is at present. I ask, further, that these officers may receive the war service increment laid down in the White Paper, whose number I quoted earlier. I can see no reason why these officers, who have given long and very arduous service during this war, should not receive the same war increment as do all other naval officers. I would also ask that in cases where they are now reaching the retiring age, they should receive the war service gratuity. One other matter. There are certain Departments where "the Services are intermingled. For example, there is the Design Department, where you find working together officers of the Army and the Navy, and I can give a case where the naval officer who is the head of the Department is receiving less remuneration than the Army officer who is his junior which, I submit, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. In a Department where the two Services are working together, surely the position ought to be arranged properly?
It may be that I am anticipating the reply of the Financial Secretary, and that he will make the point that these officers in the Inspection Department are not, in fact, naval officers, but are civil servants. Well then, I put this point to the Financial Secretary: if they are not naval officers, but are civil servants drawing 517 civil rates of pay, why are they not eligible for the Civil Service gratuity on retirement? Secondly, and this is important, if these officers are, in effect, civilians, why did they wear uniform during the war, and why were they issued with, and instructed to carry, arms in 1940? Thirdly, I would ask the Financial Secretary to inquire into the orders issued to these officers in the year 1940. I cannot pursue that particular line any further in case I come into collision with the Official Secrets Act, but if the Financial Secretary chooses to call for a copy of these Orders, he will see for himself that these officers might, in certain eventualities, have become combatant officers and certainly could not be classed as civil servants or as civilians.
Whilst Parliament exists as a place where laws arc initiated and passed for the government of the people of the country, it has ever been a traditional function of Parliament that it shall be the place where the grievances of the ordinary citizens of this country shall be voiced, with a view to trying to get those grievances remedied. I have put forward to night what I believe to be the just com plaints of a small number, a mere handful, of hard working, loyal officers of the Navy, who have given long and by no means undistinguished service to their country. Quite a number of them, I would tell the Financial Secretary, have suffered very greatly in health, and quite a number have died through overwork, including the late head of the Department, Captain Long. These officers have no voting strength, they have no trade union, they have no interest to represent them, but they feel they are being forgotten and deserted by the Admiralty. I am bound to say— although I have always found the Admiralty to be far and away the best of the three Service Departments — that the Admiralty have not shown at all a sympathetic spirit over this matter. They have rather shrugged their shoulders and thought the problem too difficult, and just let it pass by. I do not think that is good enough, and I suggest that the First Lord and the Financial Secretary should absorb a little of the spirit of Nelson and of Howe, whose first concern was always for the welfare of the men who served under them. I ask the Financial Secretary to do his best to remedy the injustices and the grievances of this comparatively small band of officers.

§ Sir Waldron Smithers (Orpington)
I rise to support 'the plea put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) because I have in my division a constituent who is very materially affected by this, and I want to put his point of view. After all, the purpose of the Adjournment is to put forward the grievances of the people we represent. He says: Another aspect of this unsatisfactory-state of affairs"— not referred to by the hon. Member who has moved this Adjournment— is the case at present, in certain inter-Service establishments with military and Air Force officers. Although interchangeable with, and carrying out the same duties as these latter officers in the establishments concerned… the military and Air Force officers are very much better off financially, due to the fact that approximately one-third of their total emoluments consists of untaxed allowances. To take a concrete example this is what the hon. Gentleman referred to, a major in the Army with similar domestic responsibilities to my own, who was until recently my immediate subordinate, receives pay at the rate of £678 per annum, subject to Income Tax, and allowances amounting to 370 per annum, untaxed. After deduction of tax his net income is approximately 828 per annum. My pay "— that is the pay of the officer concerned, on the consolidated rate is £1,077 gross, including bonus, or approximately £ 757 after deduction of tax. The anomalous position thus exists that I receive £71 less per annum than a military officer for whose work I am responsible. Many similar instances can be quoted, with frequently greater discrepancies, leading not unnaturally to a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst those affected. It is felt, and I consider with reason, that these officers are being unfairly penalised, apparently for the somewhat inadequate reason that no machinery exists under which the consolidated rates of pay established in 1929 may be reviewed; this despite the fact that the then current rate of Income Tax must clearly have been taken into account at arriving at these rates. It is also relevant here to point out again the small number of officers"— it is only a small number that we are appealing for— concerned, and the consequent comparative obscurity of the Department in question; this leads only too readily to the plight of the officers concerned being overlooked or ignored."

§ Sir W. Smithers
I am afraid that I cannot give way. I appeal to the Admiralty to look into the case of this very 519 small section of those who served them well, and to treat them fairly.

§ Mr. Austin
I was only going to inquire whether the hon. Gentleman would furnish the House with the rank of the officer to whom he referred.

§ Sir. W. Smithers
That is the difficulty. If you give away the name and rank of the officer—

§ Mr. Austin
I was asking for the rank only.

§ Sir. W. Smithers
He is a commander. In these days under a Socialist Government in power there is always the difficult—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech, save by the leave of the House.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale)
The hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) has said, as did the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), that these are only a small minority. Let me say at the outset that that, far from being a reason why we should not treat them well, is a particular reason why, I hope, I should show that we are treating them well. We attach more importance to this small minority than maybe we would to larger numbers, who have more people who can sup port them in their grievances. While this small number of men may not have any large recognised organisation supporting them, I think they are very fortunate in having the hon. Gentleman, year in and year out, supporting their case. If I may mix my metaphors somewhat, he reminds me of the importunate widow continually returning to the charge. He has returned so often that it may be, I will not anticipate, that he will meet with some success.
These men are not alone. I know that two blacks do not make a white, but theirs is not a unique case. There are in the Admiralty the hydrographic and compass officers. There are also the experimental staff in H.M.S. "Excellent "; and, outside the Admiralty, there are, in the Army, a number of retired officers who receive their pensions plus a small civil salary and are 520 employed in a variety of posts such, for example, as recruiting officers. The Admiralty are, therefore, not the only "sinners" in this respect. I would like to compare the position of these men with the civil servant. They are by no means less well paid than any other civil servant. They get between £100 and £200 more than civilians employed on inspection. The Civil Service war bonus has been given, during the war, in the same way as to the civilian staff. The hon. Gentleman complained that these men were not given war service increments or war gratuities too. They cannot have it both ways. They are given either one or the other.
I will come to that point in a moment in greater' detail. I am asked about the Civil Service war bonus has been given, during the war, in the same way as to the civilian staff. The hon. Gentleman complained that these men were not given war service increments or war gratuities too. They cannot have it both ways. They are given either one or the other.
I will come to that point in a moment in greater' detail. I am asked about the Civil Service gratuities—why they are not given the Civil Service gratuities? The answer is that these men get one-sixtieth addition to their Naval retired pay instead of one-eightieth which the civil servant. gets. If the hon. Gentleman cares to make a very difficult calculation—which I must admit I got my Department to make—I find that for a man in Group B this means £65 a year more for 15 years— in other words, £975; so he gets, as by way of gratuity, £975 by this method. He also gets, when comparing him with, the civil servant—I admit that it may seem relatively small and I hope that with the implementation of the Government's social insurance plan it will be smaller still—free dental, medical and hospital treatment, which is not accorded to civil servants.
The main burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that these men should be treated in the same way as other Naval officers rather than as civil servants. Let us compare their job with that of other officers in the Navy. I agree that their job is quite as important as that of other officers in the Navy—I would not minimise it in the least—but I would say that they take on this job voluntarily. They volunteer for this job, and they knew what the terms were when they do so

§ Lieut.-Commander Hutchison
Under the Admiralty Fleet Order, that was a condition.

§ Mr. Dugdale
But they did volunteer and they did in fact know what the conditions were. Secondly, in many ways they have rather better conditions than 521 the average naval officer. They are not compulsorily retired at 45, as are lieutenant-commanders, or at 50, as are commanders. They remain on until 50 or 55, and this extra 10 years counts for increased pension. One point, and the most important, is that they are continually on a shore job. The average officer is ashore rather less than half his normal service life. For the rest of the time he is afloat—away from his family, as likely as not—and he never knows when he will get back. He has all the difficulties that a man has who has not a settled place of abode. These men have a definite set place of abode. They are fixed in one place, and remain there for the whole of their lives.

§ Lieut.-Commander Hutchison
I am afraid that is not quite accurate. They are switched round every two or three years, and in wartime they have been all over the world. One was a prisoner of war at Singapore

§ Mr. Dugdale
I think the hon. and gallant Member is referring to regular Service officers whose main work is in peace-lime, because their service in peacetime is fortunately longer than their service in wartime. They are, as a general rule, stationed in this country, and if they move about it is within this country, so that compared with the average naval officer they have a comparatively stationary life
Are there any other people in the same category as these? Strangely enough, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman may know, this particular rule applies to no less an august body than the Board of Admiralty. When the naval Sea Lords are serving on the Board of Admiralty they are paid a less rate than they are paid when they are serving as ordinary naval officers afloat. But it is particularly hard for them, because they are in fact still liable to go abroad. In fact so much is that the case that the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, who was at that time a member of the Board, left the Board and went over to France on D-Day, and took part in operations. Yet, when he came back again his rate was at once reduced, because he was in a stationary occupation.
Perhaps the most important point of all is that these men are not subject to the Naval Discipline Act. This Act 522 among other things states—I quote Paragraph 507: If an officer should disobey orders or otherwise misbehave, he may be placed in arrest … Paragraph 541 states: Every person dismissed with disgrace is to be informed of his incapacity to serve His Majesty again in any naval, military, air or civil service … This is a liability which these men have not got. They are not under that Act, and from that point of view are in a more favourable position than the average officer.

§ Lieut.-Commander Hutchison
Surely the hon. Member would not suggest that these men are going to be criminals? It is an extraordinary argument.

§ Mr. Dugdale
No, of course I would not suggest that, but I would say that it is definitely an advantage to know that if one does get into difficulties with one's superior officer one will not have quite the same things happen to one as will happen if one is a member of the Armed Forces.

§ Sir W. Smithers
What an argument.

§ Mr. Dugdale
If these men want to come on to ordinary naval pay, I hope they will also be willing to come under the Naval Discipline Act.

§ Lieut.-Commander Hutchison
Certainly, most of them thought that they were.

§ Mr. Dugdale
I come to another point. There was no complaint from these men, so far as I know, until a few years before the war, and I would ask why this complaint arose then? I think it is largely because at that time Income Tax began to rise. Before that allowances were not of as great value as they are now. The man who gets allowances today has a definite advantage over the man with an income which is subject to Income Tax. When Income Tax rose 'these men, not unnaturally, began to look round and say, "Here are other people getting allowances and we are not getting them." That is what caused the difficulty originally. When Income Tax was at 4s. they were doing all right. When Income Tax went up to 10s. the situation. was not nearly so good.
But I will agree with the former Civil Lord who said that the case needed re-examination. I think personally that it 523 is a matter for consideration whether these men should not once and for all be put on an ordinary Civil Service basis. The trouble at the moment is that they are neither one thing nor the other, neither on a Civil Service basis nor on a naval basis. I have given certain reasons which would make it difficult for them to be put on a full naval basis, but I can see that there is a strong argument for putting them on a full Civil Service basis. It has been decided that the future structure of this particular branch shall be investigated as part of the postwar reconstruction programme. All the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member will be considered in this investigation. I hope it will be possible to solve this question finally by placing them on a firm Civil Service basis, so that there is no difference between them and any other civil servant serving in the Admiralty.

§ Lieut.-Commander Hutchison
Surely the Financial Secretary has not appreciated the point that these men have entered the Service under an Admiralty Fleet Order. He can hardly change the existing people over to a Civil Service basis. Surely they must be dealt with differently. I quite agree that new recruits should be treated on a different basis but these men entered under Admiralty Fleet Order 2078/31 and their pay must be related to active service pay

§ Mr. Dugdale
I quite agree that people at present serving would have to be given the option of remaining as they are, in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman considers is an unsatisfactory position, or having Civil Service conditions, which I think he would agree are more satisfactory.

§ Sir W. Smithers
If a naval officer in this category has to take charge of a service which involves the other Services, how can the hon. Gentleman justify his receiving less remuneration than one of his subordinates, who may be in another Department? That is a very important question.

§ Mr. Dugdale
There is a Committee now sitting on the official level discussing the different rates of pay in all the three Services. I am sure that this is not the only case of very different rates operating as between the three Services, but that goes far outside the individual case which we are now discussing.

§ Sir W. Smithers
No, it does not. It is very important.

§ Mr. Dugdale
It is very important, certainly.