HC Deb 10 March 1960 vol 619 cc703-11

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a sum, not exceeding £69,997.000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

As a considerable part of our time today has been taken and we have, therefore, to curtail our remarks on these Estimates, I will drop some of the questions I intended to raise and confine myself to one or two remarks.

My first point about this Vote concerns the new pay increases. Generally, the increases in pay announced in Cmd. 945 have been welcomed. There is no doubt that they provide a standard of living for those in the Services comparable to that of men with similar qualifications and tasks outside. But there are one or two things to which I should like to draw attention. The first is that there still seems to be a great differentiation between the higher-ranking artificers in the Navy and chief technicians and warrant officers in the Army.

I have asked this question before. Is it not time that for the lower deck in the Navy there was a prospect of promotion to a rank similar to that of warrant officer in the Army or a master technician in the Royal Air Force? It means a big difference in pay. According to the pay code in Table IB a chief engine room artificer on the nine-year rate gets 322s. a week. A warrant officer gets 360s. and I assume that the master technician in the Air Force, with his incremental pay, will receive roughly the same. That seems rather a big difference. It is time that the Navy did something about it.

I understand that at the same time as the increases in pay come into operation, the payment for the engine room watchkeeping certificate will be stopped. Therefore, in reality the artificers are not getting the increase that at first they would appear to be getting. There is a great deal of feeling about this. It is a very old payment made to engine room artificers ever since the inception of the branch about three-quarters of a century ago. It was one of the few differentials that was maintained. Some of the others have been wiped out, such as the charge pay which has now become payable to other artificers. But this was one which was kept and, as far as I know, there was never much quarrel about it.

When I was in the Service it was accepted and I understand that it has been accepted generally since then as a recognition of the fact that engine room artificers had to perform duties in circumstances very different from those in which other artificers performed their duties. They worked in very high temperatures, frequently in dirt of all kinds, and really in most unpleasant circumstances.

I remember some of the things I had to do as an engine room artificer in the Navy in appalling conditions. When one had to stop a valve on a boiler one was practically "flaked out". The artificer often has to work in the bilge of a ship, rolling about in oil and water. He has also to do a great deal more watckeeping, for a number of reasons. Most of these duties have been accepted quite gladly but they do not apply so much to the other artificer branches.

It seems to me that this 1s. a day might at least have been retained. I have said in many debates on Navy Estimates that for the past twenty years the Admiralty appears to have been engaged in a policy of taking from artificers, and especially the junior artificers, the privileges which they enjoyed. They have kicked them around for the last twenty years. This latest move seems to be the last straw. I do not know what the Admiralty will do further, but this is certainly not the way to get the men it wants or the way to keep them.

I do not know whether it is too late to reconsider the matter, but I ask that it should be reconsidered and that if possible this intention should not be put into operation. If it has been put into operation, I can only express my great regret. This is a final kick in the teeth to a branch which has been considerably kicked about. I have no time to relate all the things that have been done to it. On previous occasions I have given a list of some of the things that have happened to the branch in the last twenty years.

I understand that one of the real reasons why this is done is that the Treasury does not like these odds and ends of payments that have existed in the Navy for a great number of years. The Treasury has been trying to bring pressure to bear on the Admiralty to eliminate them. They were not tidy enough and the Treasury did not like them. That may be true, but it means that many of the arguments used in the matter of a master rate are disappearing, if they have not already disappeared altogether.

I remember having a long session with a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the subject of a master rate. His argument was, "They are very well off. Look at the odds and ends of payments they get by way of engine room tickets, charge pay, and the rest." If those things disappear, the Navy ought to be brought into line with the Army and the Royal Air Force and a rank should be instituted on the lower deck to which the chief artificer can aspire during his term of service.

I have other questions which I should like to put to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. My first concerns hard-lying money which was abolished for ratings a long time ago.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C Ian Orr-Ewing) indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis

I thought that it was. It certainly does not appear in the Navy Estimates and I seem to recollect something happening about it some time ago. However, my memory is probably at fault. I intended to ask why it is retained for officers and my argument was that if they have it, the ratings should have it too. If it is paid at present it should appear among the allowances that are payable to ratings.

The other question concerns educational allowances. There is a reduction in the allowances estimate this year of £5,000 in respect of officers. That seems perfectly reasonable in view of the fact that the Services are being run down, but I was amazed at the very large reduction in the Vote in respect of seamen and marines. There is a fall from £45,000 to £25,000, or roughly half. Perhaps the Civil Lord can tell us something about that when he replies.

6.38 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord a few questions about this Vote and particularly about the new nursing auxiliaries, a section which I understand has just been formed. I believe that it is the Admiralty's intention to do away with the Voluntary Aid Detachments which it has had previously and that only nine V.A.D.s are expected to be employed during the coming year.

What will be the age limits of the new auxiliaries? What will be their pay? Have they any chances of promotion, or is this merely a dead-end job? Will they have a special uniform and is there a certificate for which they can work after two or three years, or a final certificate before they leave the Service? When the nine V.A.D.s have completed their service, I presume that it is the Admiralty's intention not to employ any more. Why are these nine being retained, and will they be given any gratuity when they leave? Some of them have given long service.

I notice that we pay quite a lot for lodging allowances. From my own personal experience I think that some of the furnished accommodation hired by the Admiralty is very poor, and I am not certain that in many cases the Admiralty are not paying far more for it than it is worth. I have myself had occasion to go to a house where the top flat was rented by the Admiralty and the lower one by a private individual. I had to bring in the sanitary inspector to inspect the lower one. I could not interfere in respect of the top flat, but I realised that the whole house was not in a good state of repair.

I should like to support what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said on the question of education. I understand that people are getting married younger and having larger families. This does not seem to me to be the right moment to cut the vote for education, particularly as I understand that a number of these married couples go overseas.

Finally, like the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted to see that there is still an increase in the number of members of the W.R.N.S. We did not have much opportunity in a previous debate of mentioning their services. I think that they are giving increasingly valuable services. In view of the fact that some discouraging remarks were made about the women's Services in the debate yesterday—

Mr. Willis

Not in the Navy.

Miss Vickers

—I should like to express my particular appreciation of the services which these women are giving to the Royal Navy. I hope that they will be kept in increasing numbers in the service of the Admiralty.

6.42 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing)

To deal with the question of the master rate first, I think that anyone in my position who visits the fleet cannot fail to be reminded of this problem. Wherever one goes one meets it. I know that many senior ratings feel that a new rate should be introduced by the Navy which would rank above the rate of C.P.O. and be equated in pay to the rate paid to warrant officers in the other two Services. The master rate has been considered over a long period of time, in fact on several occasions since the end of the war. A fresh review of this problem is very near completion. A statement will be made to the fleet about it, and I shall send a copy to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).

Mr. Willis

My point about it is that in addition to the higher status there is a very big difference in pay between the top ratings of the lower deck and the top technicians in the ranks in the Army and Air Force.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I am aware of the problems. It is all linked up with the special duties list and promotion into that list. That has been the case for a long time during which the matter has been reviewed.

The second point raised concerned the E.R.As. First and foremost, we recognise the tremendous job which is done by the engineer room artificer in the Navy. I suppose that it is fair to say that when the hon. Gentleman was in that capacity he was among the most skilled ratings in the ship. With the increasing complexity in other branches, even although today the same skill and even greater skill is demanded of the E.R.As., it is true that there are many other people who must have a high degree of skill. It would not be right to say that the wiping out of all watchkeeping certificate pay has left them worse off. There is an increase under the new pay code of 6s. 6d. a day, but it is true that the men lose 1s. a day from their watchkeeping certificate pay. I have been comparing the rates of pay with the increase which the E.R.As. receive, and it is true to say that they got up to 13 per cent. more out of this recent increase than any other chiefs or petty officers.

Mr. Willis

All artificers?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

Yes, all artificers. I think that I have dealt with the main point. I will make a note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he is worried about whether they get a certificate, I would point out that they will continue to get a watchkeeping certificate, because they may want it in later life elsewhere.

Mr. Willis

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the other branches being highly skilled. When I was in the Service, the electrical artificer was an exceedingly skilled rating and so were others. The point I made was that the nature of the work and the conditions under which it has to be undertaken are very different in the case of the engine room artificer. That is probably one of the reasons why, so far as I know, there has never been any great complaint about the 1s. a day watchkeeping allowance. It is a form of compensation and, for that reason. I think that it should have been kept.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

We recognise that. In a great number of ships which I have visited I have been in the engine rooms and know the conditions, particularly in places like the Persian Gulf, under which the E.R.A.s have to work. It is equally true that we have advanced to a great degree in heat insulation and air conditioning. We have a long way to go still but the conditions are probably not as bad as those which the hon. Gentleman experienced.

As regards hard-lying money, I have an unusual explanation there. When we came to prepare the Estimates for printing we were in fact negotiating the hard-lying rate. It was, therefore, thought wrong to include it in Appendix I as at that stage we were not firm as to what it should be. A sergeant major, Royal Marines, C.P.Os. and petty officers, and equivalent Royal Marine ranks get 2s. a day, leading ratings and below and equivalent ranks 1s. a day, and juniors 6d. a day. In Votes A and B £15,000 is allowed for officers and £50,000 for hard-lying money for ratings.

On the education point raised by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), this was merely an adjustment because last year we had nothing to go on when the education allowance was introduced and the rate from £75 was up-graded to £150 with extension. But we were not quite sure how many officers and ratings would apply. The result is that, in the light of experience, we found that we had slightly over-budgeted. That is why it is not a reduction in fact but is bringing the Estimate this year much more into line with what was spent last year on the number of people who applied for it.

Mr. Willis

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that this allowance is well known on the lower deck?

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I think that it is well known. Of course, it is for those people who are either abroad or in this country and moving about a great deal. There is still a certain amount of feeling among some families that they do not want their children to be sent away to boarding schools. This is not universal, but perhaps we under-estimated that feeling. I shall certainly ensure that in the fleet orders there is plenty of notification on this matter.

Reverting to the E.R.As., I should say that they receive their promotion about a year earlier under the new pay code. This advantage becomes even more valuable because engine room artificers will be eligible for the C.P.Os'. higher rate of basic pay and will receive their increments one year earlier than other artificers. So, when pay goes up they will get the extra pay one year earlier than other artificers.

Mr. Willis

I know that this is one of the arguments of the Admiralty, but I am not certain that it is true. I am informed that, while this may be partly true compared with other artificers, under the new scheme for mechanicians it is possible that mechanicians will be chief petty officers a year before chief artificers. I am not objecting to that but only pointing out that it is not a good argument.

Mr. Orr-Ewing

I think we should wait and see how the mechanician scheme works out before passing judgment. If the hon. Gentleman and I are in our respective places next year, we can have another discussion on this point.

The hon. Lady asked about the Naval Nursing Auxiliary Section. I am glad to have an opportunity of making an announcement because recruiting began in February for one branch, and the duties previously performed in other hospitals and establishments by naval V.A.D.s and W.R.N.S. sick berth assistants will in future be the responsibility of the Naval Nursing Auxiliaries, a new section of the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service.

The Naval Nursing Auxiliary Section will offer a permanent nursing career for girls between the ages of 17½ and 28, and for members of the British Red Cross Society, St. John Ambulance Brigade and St. Andrew's Nursing Association who wish to volunteer their services. It will also provide a permanent link between nursing W.R.N.S. who transfer from the sick berth branch. Nursing auxiliaries will be given twenty weeks' initial training at a naval hospital before serving in Royal Naval Hospital shore establishments in the United Kingdom or overseas. They will share the privileges of Service life while following a nursing career, and there will be opportunities for suitable auxiliaries to qualify as State registered nurses.

Examination fees for those who enter the examination for S.R.N. are to be refunded, and for those who remain in the Nursing Auxiliary Section there are prospects of advancing to three grades above the basic rate, with pay of £13 9s. 6d. at the top.

I am not in a position to answer off the cuff the hon. Lady's query about V.A.D.s who leave the Service, but I will write to her on that point and also on her question about uniform.

I endorse everything the hon. Lady said about the W.R.N.S. They have always played a tremendously valuable part in the Royal Navy, and they are unique in the sphere of communications, where their accuracy and conscientiousness are of great value. We rely on them to a great extent and I am delighted to have an opportunity of praising them.

The hon. Lady felt that there were instances where houses were not in the best condition. If she would let me have the name and address of the house in question, I will certainly look into the matter. We like to make regular inspection of hirings and it looks as if there has been an error. I will look into any detailed case as carefully as I can.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That a sum, not exceeding £69,997,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.