HC Deb 14 April 1953 vol 514 cc18-20
23. Brigadier Clarke

asked the Secretary of State for War why married officers and other ranks serving in Korea are not entitled to separation allowance at the recently announced rates.

26. Mr. Brockway

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will extend the increased marriage allowance for soldiers separated from their homes to men serving in Korea; and if he will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to exempting them from Income Tax.

Mr. Head

The allowance to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is not a separation allowance but is an increased local overseas allowance for the married unaccompanied officer or soldier to meet the extra expenses when serving at a high cost overseas station. It applies, therefore, only to areas where local overseas allowance is paid. The allowance is tax free.

Brigadier Clarke

Does my right hon. Friend not feel that this privilege should be extended to all serving men, especially to those fighting for the free world and now serving in Korea?

Mr. Head

The object of this allowance is to compensate men who might normally expect to have a married quarter and who have not got one owing to various difficulties. I do not think that a man serving in Korea would expect his wife to be in that theatre in married quarters.

Mr. Shinwell

Is the local overseas allowance which is paid to officers and men serving in Korea higher or lower than the local overseas allowance which is paid to officers and men in Belgium?

Mr. Head

There is no local overseas allowance in Korea.

Mr. Shinwell

I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that his reference to separation allowance meant overseas allowance.

Mr. Head

No; there is no separation allowance either. All that there is is a local overseas allowance in certain theatres and a married local unaccompanied allowance as supplementary to the local overseas allowance, for men who are married and separated.

Mr. Shinwell

Will the Secretary of State for War be good enough to say whether the officers and men serving in Korea are entitled to the same privileges as are afforded to the officers and men serving in Belgium?

Mr. Head

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to this' matter of local overseas allowance, the answer is "No," because there is no local overseas allowance in Korea, and never has been.

Mr. Fenner Brockway

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the men in Korea understand the reason for this, may I ask whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds following a visit to Korea that both men and officers are very bitter about this matter?

Mr. Head

I was not aware that I claimed that every man there understood it, and I well appreciate that every man would like to have this allowance. I repeat, however, that it was intended for single men in stations which were expensive, and where there was local overseas allowance that that amount should be made up for them for their married status because they had a home to keep up in this country or elsewhere.

Mr. Nicholson

There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about this so-called separation allowance and my right hon. Friend's answers today have done very little to clarify it. The impression still remains that the wives of men serving in Korea are less favourably placed than the wife of a man serving in, for example, Malaya.

Mr. Head

The object of this allowance was that a man stationed in an expensive station, where a local overseas allowance was justified by a high cost of living, should have an extra amount, so that in living his single life he should not be at a disadvantage in relation to a bachelor because he had another home to keep up in England or elsewhere.

Mr. Beswick

Whatever the object may have been, does not the Secretary of State agree that an injustice has been created, and will he look into this matter again?

Mr. Head

No. I do not think anybody would argue that the actual cost of living in Korea is very high; there is practically nothing upon which to spend money. That is why there is not a local overseas allowance. Based on that, I do not think it is unfair.

Mr. Brockway

On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has answered Question No. 26 with Question No. 23, but he has not answered the second part of Question No. 26.

Mr. Head

I did say at the end of my reply that the allowance is tax free.

Mr. Brockway

Further to that point of order. The second part of the Question does not only refer to this separation allowance. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the next half hour he will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter?

Mr. Speaker

There is no point of order there for me.