NAVAL PERSONNEL (FAMILIES, PASSAGE COSTS) (Hansard, 11 October 1946)

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor (Paddington, South)
On 17th July I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question regarding the passage costs demanded for the conveyance of the wives and families of naval ratings in H.M.S. "Speaker" to Bermuda. The First Lord, in his reply, referred to a new scheme announced on 29th May for free passages for the wives and families of officers and ratings under certain conditions, and he stated that this scheme would be brought in at an early date. He stated that in the meantime the charges were based on those authorised for troop transports and that the ratings' families given cabin accommodation in H.M.S. "Speaker" to Bermuda were being charged Grade B charges—that is £35 for the wife to go to Bermuda. That was not the first rate that was demanded. It was reduced, no doubt, because of the representations made to the Admiralty against 572 their exorbitant demands in the first instance. These initial charges were for a petty officer, wife and child, £69 for their passage to Bermuda in one of His Majesty's ships. The wife of a leading seaman was asked to pay £46 for her passage to Bermuda. Subsequently that sum was reduced to £35. I asked at the Royal Mail office what charge was made for the transfer of ordinary civilian passengers to Bermuda and I was told that the first-class rate was £50. So that the Admiralty had originally demanded from the wife or the naval rating within £4 of the first-class rate in a passenger ship.
Why were those exorbitant charges demanded at all? They were such as no naval rating could afford to pay. They would be a millstone around his neck. In his reply, the First Lord stated that anybody who had taken a passage after 1st July, and who came under the provisions of the new scheme for free passage, would have the sum refunded. I would now ask the Financial Secretary whether the ratings have had their payments refunded to them. My information is that at the end of September a leading seaman at Bermuda is still suffering a deduction of some £3 us. per month from his pay for the conveyance of his wife. That sum is more than a third of his total pay, and, if he continues to pay it, it will take him 10 months to pay back to the Admiralty the price of the voyage of his wife to Bermuda.
It was not until I raised the matter in this House on 17th July that the First Lord made his statement that his new scheme would operate for those who had taken passage after 1st July. Therefore, I think I am entitled to ask what the position would have been had I not raised this matter in the House on 17th July, and why that delay because, when the scheme was announced on 29th May, it was to come into effect at an early date? There is no doubt that when that scheme was made known to naval personnel, officers and ratings who could take advantage of the scheme, no doubt thinking it would be brought in at an early date, searched for suitable accommodation for their wives and families which, in accordance with the new scheme, had to be approved by the Commander-in-Chief as being suitable and accessible before they could be considered for a passage. That shows the great pity it was that, when a scheme of that sort was announced, and 573 raised great hopes in the minds of officers and men, the date was not announced at the same time.
H.M.S. "Speaker" was not a troop transport at all. Nor was she engaged on that duty. She was on her way to America to be turned over to the United States of America under the Lend-Lease Agreement. Advantage was taken of that fact to enable certain officials who had to go to Bermuda to take passage in her, and also for the wives of naval ratings, I think 11 in number. I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty what justification there was for charging naval ratings £35 for the passage of their wives to Bermuda in one of His Majesty's ships? What right? As a matter of fact, there was another of these ships, H.M.S. "Reaper," which also was going to America under Lend-Lease arrangements and those who were given a passage in her were charged messing expenses only which came to £4 10s. I ask, why this discrimination between a messing charge of £4 10s. for passage in H.M.S. "Reaper," and the charge of £35 to those in H.M.S. "Speaker"? Why this differentiation? I would also ask whether the amount paid for passage in H.M.S. "Speaker" had ever been made before for passage in one of His Majesty's ships, or was it the first time that they were charged at these rates, that is to say, charged more than messing? I would ask this too: have we now reached the stage when it is necessary for His Majesty's Government to extract from naval officers and naval ratings as much as possible for a passage for their wives in one of His Majesty's ships in order that the Government may pay its way? Is that so? If not, what justification is there for it?
The policy whch has been adopted by all three Services—and a very good policy it is—is to make the conditions of service more attractive to officers and men in order to attract the best personnel to those services, but I maintain that this charge is entirely against the spirit of that policy. It must do an immense amount of harm, and create an immense amount of discontent.
The new scheme was brought in so that, under certain conditions, wives of naval officers and naval ratings should have free passage to join their husbands who serve abroad for a long period, and by that 574 means do away with the enforced separation of husbands from their wives and families, which was so common in the past. It is a most excellent policy, but this is a very bad example of it. That the matter may now have been put right, is very satisfactory, but that it should ever have arisen is a great disgrace, and will require very considerable explanation by the Admiralty.

§ Commander Noble (Chelsea)
I am glad to say a few words in support of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). The facts and figures he has revealed are surprising, to say the least. In my experience in the Navy, I have never known a case like this before. I am not conversant with the exact details of King's Regulations on this subject, but I know there are various rates of messing laid down for various types of passengers carried in His Majesty's ships. I have never known a case of an actual passage being charged, especially to the wife of a naval officer or naval rating. I quite see that such a system of carrying naval officers' wives cannot be carried too far. In normal times, when there was plenty of shipping, I suppose a fair argument would be that the shipping lines would lose. But in these days of acute shortage of transportation of all sorts, especially at sea, I think no shipping lines would raise that argument. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will be able to tell us that this sort of thing will not occur again.
On the general subject of passages for naval families, I hope the Admiralty will soon implement the announcement they made a short time ago. That announcement was received with very great enthusiasm by the Royal Navy. It has been a subject of grievance for many years in comparison with conditions in the other Services. For example, from the Mediterranean where at the moment quite a large percentage of our naval personnel is centred, with special reference to Malta, I have had several requests recently asking for help in getting families out there. I have gone into them carefully, and the situation appears to be that the Admiralty have not yet decided to sponsor the passage of families of seagoing personnel to the Mediterranean. In three cases brought before me the 575 families have obtained accommodation, the requisite passports and entry permits, but cannot get a passage. I will quote a paragraph from a letter which, by a strange and happy coincidence, I received this morning from a young man in the Mediterranean It says: Those in this ship who are hoping to bring out their families are coming, or going to come, up against the same bulwark. It is the basis of the whole thing which appears to be so inequitable, i.e., that unless one's wife has a Government sponsored passage, her chances of travelling out to the Mediterranean seem non-existent at the moment. That confirms the inquiries which I made on this subject. May I compare this situation with the—

§ Commander Noble
May I compare this situation with the arrangements made for the Army on the Rhine and for the Army in Italy? Nothing seems to have been done for the Navy on the very generous lines which the Army enjoys. The getting of families of Army personnel out to Germany has been made, as far as I can see, a major operation. Surely, a little help could be given to get naval families out to the Mediterranean. I would again emphasise that they have their accommodation ready and that all they want is a little help in the matter of their passage. Even if the Admiralty have not decided to send the wives of seagoing personnel free, they could help them to get a passage. I think I am right in saying that the shore based personnel are only a small proportion compared with those who are seagoing. I do not wish to pursue this subject any further, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will give some encouragement to these people, and will give a very sympathetic consideration to the cases to which I have referred.

§ Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)
I wish to intervene for a few moments in support of what has been said by the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who preceded me. For a great many years in the past I was associated with the fortunes of the British Navy. It has 576 always been the privilege of Parliament to protect the interests of the Fleet, and it would be a deplorable thing if this House of Commons were to be indifferent to the treatment of the cases which have been brought to its notice this afternoon by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). The relationship between the Admiralty and the great sea Services has always been on such a high plane that it would be deplorable if a question of this kind were to be made an example of seeming indifference. I hope that the Financial Secretary will take into consideration the case put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend and will take care that such treatment will never occur again.
The administration of the sea Services and the relationship between them and the Admiralty have always been regarded as an outstanding feature in our public life. I hope that that broad and general principle will be maintained in the future. Why should a naval rating and his wife be treated in this indifferent and casual way at the instance of the Admiralty, or at the instance of any other body in a matter in which the Admiralty could properly intervene? I hope the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will take to heart what has been said this afternoon, and will realise how much the whole country would appreciate a more generous attitude of the Admiralty towards the families of officers and men in the Navy in the matter of their transport from one part of His Majesty's Dominions to another.

§ Mr. Rees-Williams (Croydon, South)
I would not like the Financial Secretary to reply without someone speaking from these benches because, although I know nothing about this subject, I have heard what the two hon. and gallant Members opposite, who obviously know a good deal about it, have said. It seems to me that, unless the Financial Secretary has some very strong arguments to oppose, their case is one which we ought to consider very seriously. I think we should consider it on two grounds. First, if this amenity is not given to the Navy, it will be at a disadvantage as against the Army, and it is very undesirable that one of the Services should have advantages denied to another service. We know what has been done for the wives of men in B.A.O.R., 577 and I see no reason at all why shore-based officers and men of our Navy should not have similar advantages where they can be provided. A second reason is that it is going to be found far more difficult in future than in the old days to maintain our Services in foreign parts. Young men of today dislike foreign service. I think they are mistaken in that view, but, there it is; they dislike it. Anything that can be done to encourage them to undertake foreign service we should do, and, undoubtedly, the opportunity of having the families, even of only a small proportion of the Forces, abroad will encourage young men to join.
The families who are in these foreign ports have a very considerable effect on the lives of the other men in the ports who have not got their families with them. They provide opportunities of English life, and, as it were, keep the idea of home going on in the minds of young men. A few wives of Service people abroad can do more than any Provost-Marshal to keep young men in order—and the old ones, too. For these reasons, I strongly support the eloquent pleas put forward by the two hon. and gallant Gentleman on the other side.

§ Group-Captain Wilcock (Derby)
There is only one observation which I should like to make, and I am sure it is going to be a most unpopular one. I would, of course, support without question the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that these charges should not be made to these naval ratings, because it would not be so in the case of a soldier or an airman, but I wonder whether this policy of trooping families is the correct one. It is always considered most unfair not to have families abroad, but the unfairness exists in that it is very seldom that the people who do go overseas are those who should go. A very small proportion of families can ever go overseas with the Armed Forces, and those who do are generally wives with very small families or with none at all, or the wives of very senior officers, or, very probably, those who can afford the financial disturbance necessary.
Families overseas have often entirely the reverse effect to that expected, and I am suggesting that it might be a very good policy not to have families abroad at all, but that, instead, we should have 578 very much shorter periods of service abroad, under which all officers and men would be dealt with equally, and we should not have the unsatisfactory position of some people having their families with them while others were unlucky.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
The new suggestion is that it should be free.

§ Group-Captain Wilcock
I was not dealing exactly with that particular case which was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. That is the only point I wish to make.

§ The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale)
I am very glad that hon. Members have raised this point, because I think I can clear up a number of misconceptions. At least, I hope I can do so. To take first the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock), I cannot agree with him, and the Government do not agree with him. We think that it is desirable that these men should be able to have their families with them. Naturally, they cannot all have them, but we think it is important that as many as possible should have them.
Now let me get on to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). This is the situation. To ease the shipping position, it was arranged in January of this year that Royal Navy ships should carry fare-paying passengers. There were three rates. These rates were based on those in troopships. I would add before I go any further that H.M.S. "Reaper" and any other ships such as were mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman went before this scheme came into operation. They went under wartime conditions. So far as this new scheme is concerned, H.M.S. "Speaker" was the first ship to sail carrying the families of naval ratings after the scheme came in. This ship had no accommodation suitable for what were called Grade B passengers. There were three grades—A, B, and C. Accordingly, these people who would normally have got Grade B passages—second class—were, in fact, given Grade A passages and they paid at Grade B rates. Therefore, they had a definite advantage in that respect. The rates normally would be £46 per adult 579 with half rates for children over three. That would be the first class or Grade A rate. These families were, in fact, paying the Grade B rate which was £35.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
I pointed out—and this is irrefutable—that the first demand in respect of a petty officer's wife and child was for £69—£46 for herself and £23 for the child—and that for a wife without a child the demand was £46 and not £35. The sum of £35 came afterwards. It was an alteration due, no doubt, to the speeches I made and to representations made to the Admiralty.

§ Mr. Dugdale
It was due to the tact that the accommodation was not available. If accommodation had been available they would have paid £46, but as it was not available they did not have to pay £46. All this is really very academic, because apart from this, and bearing no relation whatever to H.M.S. "Speaker" or to the speeches made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Padding-ton, I announced in the House on 29th May—approximately five weeks before H.M.S. "Speaker" set sail—and I can assure the House that I had no knowledge that H.M.S "Speaker" was going to set sail or that any naval families were going in H.M.S. "Speaker" —that arrangements had been made for all families of officers, petty officers and shore based ratings to be carried free. I would add that since this announcement it has been decided that all ratings with seven years' man service, whether stationed ashore or at sea, will get the same facilities, so there is a definite improvement. These families are, therefore, going to get free passages. This has happened quite apart from, and with no relation whatever to, the question of H.M.S. 'Speaker,' but, as a result, all the people who were transported in H.M.S. "Speaker" will get their money refunded and, in fact, the Fleet Order has gone out to this effect. They have been asked to send in their applications for the money which is due to them and they will get the money. I admit that some of them may not have got it yet. but they will get it and many of them already have it.
Finally, so far as this particular subject is concerned, my noble Friend is considering whether in fact, this concession 580 which dates from 1st July may be antedated back to the date when I first made the statement, namely on 29th May. In that case, anybody who left after 29th May with any idea that they would get a free passage would, in fact, get it. We are considering whether this alteration cannot be made. I must say a few words on this question in general. The righteous indignation displayed by the hon. and gallant Member for South Pad-dington and other right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House simply amazes me. I just cannot understand it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must have woken up from a very deep slumber.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
I have been very wide awake.

§ Mr. Dugdale
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been a Member of this House for a considerable number of years. I think I am correct in saying he first came as an Empire Crusader. Did he continually, day in day out, press previous Governments to introduce free passages for families? Did he do so? Did other hon. Members opposite do so? If they did they were singularly unsuccessful.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
As far as I know, passages in His Majesty's ships have never been charged for at these rates—never. I have never heard of it before, and I went to sea 54 years ago.

§ Mr. Dugdale
I do not mean that at all. I mean free passages in any ships for families, giving them an opportunity of going to the places where the husbands are stationed That is the reform which has been introduced recently.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)
May I put a question? The hon. Gentleman talks with an air of great innocence, as if something wonderful had been done, and accuses my hon. and gallant Friend of not having done this before the war. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that we have just fought a war for the last six years. I challenge him to deny that the same arrangement? were made after the last war

§ Mr. Dugdale
The fact is, this is the first time that men have, in fact, been able to have free transport for their 581 families to go to them when they are stationed abroad. This reform which the hon. and gallant Gentleman so appreciates was brought in by this Government, not by a previous Government—and this is not the only one. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised this subject I must remind him of one or two things besides, as we are on an Adjournment Motion. I maintain that in this respect, as in many others, naval welfare was grossly neglected before this war—grossly neglected, in spite of the advice of senior officers, including himself no doubt. We are in such a position for instance, that the Civil Lord, who today is in charge of barracks and shore establishments, informs me there are no barracks less than 40 years old. Anything was good enough for sailors apparently—any accommodation, any quarters, it did not matter.

§ Vice-Admiral Taylor
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether all this has anything to do with the question which I raised?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is in Order in speaking on matters relevant to the subject under discussion.

§ Mr. Dugdale
I am sorry if I should be thought to be out of Order. I had always understood, as you say, Mr. Speaker, that anything having even indirect relevance to the subject raised was in Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should be able to take his own medicine. He has been accusing us on this side of the House of neglecting the interests of sailors. I am explaining to him that, on the contrary, he and other hon. Members on his side of the House have shown considerable neglect of the interests of sailors. The hon. and gallant Gentleman held a high rank in the Navy. I have no doubt that in his capacity as an admiral he frequently asked for better conditions for the sailors under his command. What was the answer? The answer was: "There is not enough money. There just is not enough money. The money is not available." In those days, so I understand, both money and labour were plentiful—labour particularly, there were millions of unemployed. Yet these reforms were not introduced, apparently because the party opposite were not interested in the welfare of the sailor. That-is the only reason I can think of. I can- 582 not see any other. This Government, in spite of the shortage of money and of labour due to the war—

§ Earl Winterton
Like the other side, they were full of pacifists who did not fight in the war.

§ Mr. Dugdale
I am sorry that the noble Lord should still have a curious illusion that only hon. Members on his side took any part in winning the last war.

§ Earl Winterton
Only Members of this side of the House were killed in the last war.

§ Mr. Dugdale
We have heard all that before, we heard it long ago, and we also know that the average age of Members on that side at that time was considerably younger than the average age of Members on this side.

§ Earl Winterton
It is today.

§ Mr. Dugdale
We know that to be true in those days. I maintain that in fact this Government has done more for the welfare of the sailors than has been done for very many years past, and that this is just one example. I would only like to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of two things we have introduced. We are entirely revolutionising the feeding arrangements, the system of galleys in ships, and we are seeing that in future ships get the very best feeding arrangements and galleys, quite up to any comparable standard abroad.

§ Commander Noble
May I interrupt? The Financial Secretary will agree that these reforms have been in progress for some years.

§ Mr. Dugdale
Oh, no, they are quite new. These are just some instances, and all I would say in conclusion is this. I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Member has raised this question. I am glad that he is showing this interest in the welfare of the Fleet. I could have wished that he had shown it before, but knowing how deeply he has the welfare of the Navy at heart now, I hope he will give us every help and encouragement in our task.

§ Sir P. Hannon
Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, and in view of the attack he has made on Members on this side of the House, would he admit that 583 when the present Leader of the Opposition was First Lord of the Admiralty he did at that time introduce a whole series of reforms?

§ Mr. Dugdale
Maybe he did, but I am still saying that apparently, from what we 584 can see, there were very many which he did not introduce, such as this.