HC Deb 10 March 1960 vol 619 cc743-55

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a sum, not exceeding £127,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

There are one or two points which I should like to put to the Undersecretary. I think he knows that the Committee generally welcomed the new pay increases. I note, however, in Subhead H, "National Service grants," that there is a substantial reduction in the provision for 1960–61. I imagine that that might well be accounted for by the running down of the Army, and, in particular, as a result of fewer National Service men.

I think that all of us in our constituency work come across cases in which we feel that sometimes the National Service grant might well have been granted to dependants, where, in fact, it has not been done. I should like an assurance that the provision for these grants is not being reduced as a result of any change in policy. I should also like the view of the Under-Secretary on the possibility of the value of the grants being reconsidered in the light of the substantial rises in expenses and the cost of living since the last date on which they were reviewed.

My other question about pay concerns a point which I might have raised yesterday but did not, about provision of new technicians, and, in particular, their timed promotion over a period of five years to the rank of sergeant. I have no objection to technicians being properly paid, as indeed they must be if we are to recruit the numbers we should like to see, but it seems to me to be a rather clumsy way of arriving at this arrangement, and will, of course, lead to a great number of sergeants, possibly, and very few lesser ranks in that part of the Service. I should like the Under-Secretary's views on the reasons why, concerning the pay of technicians, the Army seeks to adopt this form of approach.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had time to consider the point which I hope is appropriate to this Vote and which was put by one of his hon. Friends yesterday. I wonder why in this day and age the Army could not devise a more civilised way of actually paying the money to the troops. The old-fashioned pay parade should be a thing of the past, and I am personally very much attracted by the suggestion that, where appropriate, a unit bank or some other civilised arrangement should be provided for the actual paying of the troops.

Finally, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could also tell me tonight the answer to a point of which I did not give him notice yesterday and, consequently, he was not able to tell me yesterday, concerning the numbers that come within the contingents in the Army that we can now say are mobile by air, or airborne troops.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

It is appropriate on Vote I to say a word or two about the anachronistic nonsense in which we are engaged. It has a long history, and one comes along to say it from time to time, for it is a means whereby the Treasury and its servants in the War Office keep control over Army administration.

Its history goes back to the Civil War in the seventeenth century, when Charles I hit on the very convenient device of taking money that was voted in Vote VI for rations and spending it on Vote I for pay, thereby increasing the size of the Army to a point at which he could challenge the authority of Parliament. Parliament has never forgotten it, and year by year we come along and are asked by the three fighting Services to go meandering through what are called accounts. They are nothing of the kind. They are the total sum of the Army which is broken up into various forms. The real estimate is presented in such a form as to be quite unintelligible to any hon. Member of this House, however diligent he may be. We can be quite sure that what is on the surface is not what is underneath. The reason for that is because the Permanent Secretary at the War Office is the real master of the Army. He and the Command Secretary run the show, are in charge of the soldiers and the Secretary of State and see that not one penny piece of Vote VI is spent on Vote I.

When war breaks out, all this nonsense goes. The sum total of the Army is carried by Vote I and the control by regulations built up over the years goes through the window. Now, in peace, we have goodness knows how many regulations. I will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman by asking exactly how many regulations there are, but there must be well over 50 sets of them. It is a crime of the first magnitude if any commanding officer or, indeed, any officer or soldier is found disobeying any one of these paragraphs or does not carry out what is contained in the sub-paragraphs.

I have pleaded that one day a Secretary of State for War will tackle this problem of control by regulations. There was an attempt to do it after the First World War, but it failed. The significant fact is that—and this happened in both the First and Second World Wars—under the test of war the system goes. As soon as peace returns, the Permanent Secretary once again gets a grip on the Army.

Any hon. Member who thinks that the Army is run by the Secretary of State or by the C.I.G.S. is living in a dream world. The real controller of the Army sits in the Treasury, and his chief instrument is the Permanent Secretary. If hon. Members doubt this, when they visit commands, as they have been invited to do during our debates, let them ask to meet the Command Secretary, for he runs the show. Every penny which is spent has to be authorised by him. If it is proposed to spend a single penny, the Command Secretary has to see whether there is a paragraph in the regulations to approve it. If there is not, the money cannot be spent. The real test of a soldier's efficiency is not his understanding of strategy or of modern war, but whether he carries out the regulations. This is a stultifying business, and it is an appropriate moment to say a word or two about it.

I should also like to say a word about the new Pay Code. I have done my best to understand it. First, I should like to refer to page 65 of the Grigg Report. I have a great admiration for Sir James Grigg. He was scurvily treated, as I have said before, in his pension rights. He rendered great service to the public. He was not a great Secretary of State for War, because he failed in his relations with Parliament, but he certainly understood the Army and gave it great service. He also understands the pay system. What he pleaded for in paragraph 7 of page 65 of the Report was simplification. If hon. Members read that paragraph they will notice that Sir James Grigg talks about another old hoary curse of the Army—reserved rights. This is a little fiction which the Treasury keeps up, and it does it very well, that anything that is ever given to anyone must never be taken away.

Let me give a classic example of how the matter works out. Those of us whose service goes back to the days before the war will understand this. After the First World War there was a clean-up of pay. It centred on two basic Army Orders— Army Order 324 for officers and Army Order 325 for other ranks. Following those, there were two other Amy Orders —Order 357 of 1920, which introduced a new system of marriage allowances, and Order 368 of 1920 dealing with higher qualifications of non-tradesmen— proficiency pay, and the like.

Under these new regulations, drivers —M.T. as they were called—were given tradesmen's rates of pay, because in the retreat from Mons the great shortage was not plumes and lances and things of that sort but M.T. ranks. The Army therefore had to go into the open market and pay 6s. a day to get people to join the R.A.S.C. as drivers. From that time there emerged a mechanised force. The Royal Armoured Corps had not yet been formed. It was the Tank Corps, and the cavalry at that stage had not managed to strangle it.

As the demand for M.T. drivers grew, this became a great embarrassment. What the Treaury did, in order to welsh, was to withdraw the tradesmen's rates of pay for M.T. drivers and to revert to normal rates. That is all right up to a point, but it means that in those days chaps were serving in the same unit, in the same armoured car or tank, on two different rates of pay. That does not lead to good feeling.

That nonsense was carried on up to the great divide in pre-war Army pay. On 26th October, 1925, the Government of the day decided to welsh on the Army as a whole. They introduced a lower rate of pay, Therefore, we then had throughout the Army, in the same unit, barrack-room or mess, two groups of chaps, those who had enlisted before 26th October, 1925, drawing one rate of pay and another contingent who joined afterwards drawing a different rate. Nothing could be worse for the Army than this.

I suggest to the Under-Secretary—this is not a novel suggestion of mine; I have made it before and perhaps the day may come when some great reformer may adopt it—that when the point is reached and it is necessary because of changing circumstances to change the rates of pay, we should honour the obligation which we have entered into but should expunge it by means of a gratuity, or should turn round to the chaps and say, "We are sorry. You cannot go on, but must leave." What we should avoid at all costs is having two men serving alongside each other, doing the same job, with one on one rate of pay and the other on another rate.

The new Pay Code introduced this year has, to my astonishment, found general acceptance in all parts of the House of Commons. No critical voices were raised against it. It needs to be looked at with care. If the Committee does not understand it, if the House of Commons does not understand it, in every sergeants' mess, in every officers' mess and in every N.A.A.F.I. it is understood. In short, if the Secretary of State does not understand it, the most recently joined private soldier does, at least in relation to what he is getting. During the course of conversation he finds out what somebody else is getting, and that is that.

On the face of it, the new Pay Code looks magnificent. Admittedly, there is a certain amount of simplification. The stars have disappeared, but in their place we have grades. The reason why we have abandoned the stars and introduced grades is because the Secretary of State for War is in grave difficulties about getting people for his Service. I am not now coming back to my hobbyhorse of yesterday of recruiting, although this is getting near to it.

The new Pay Code was introduced not as an act of generosity on the part of the Army. The Grigg Committee recommended a biennial review, but, basically, the principles on which the Code is worked out are the same principles as are used for a flypaper. One puts on some attractive sticky stuff and hopes the fly will get on to the flypaper and be stuck. It is exactly the same technique.

When any concessions are given in, say, Group A, my suspicious mind makes me wonder how many people will get them. I wonder how many are to lose the concession and to how many it is being given. I am sure that if we could get the Under-Secretary to break down the distribution of the tradesmen's rate of pay in terms of class, we would find a mere handful in Group A, but a heck of a lot in Group B.

I invite hon. Members to do as I have done and make a comparison between Group B and normal rates in the Pay Code which we are asked to adopt (Cmnd. 945), and to do the same sums in terms of the Pay Code contained in Cmnd. 365. We find that whereas in the 1958 Code, for sergeant upwards, including staff sergeant, warrant officer class II and warrant officer class I, there was a distinction—the differential was operating as between the tradesman and the non-tradesman—in the new Pay Code they all get the same.

The reason is that the Secretary of State is not worried about that group. He has got those people. He is not worried about them in relation to his manpower problems. He is, however, concerned about varying groups in which he has shortages. If time permitted, one could fairly well draw up a list of the groups in which the Army finds itself in a position of acute shortage.

I am not saying that it is wrong to use a differential. I have always advocated the use of a differential, but it must be worked out in such a way that not only the flies who are on the flypaper do not find out until it is too late but so that we are careful to see that the flies not on the flypaper do not find out as well, because they may be "too fly". I find from correspondence that I have had that Group B tradesmen in the Army already know what the War Office is up to. They think that it is an injustice, because a differential which distinguishes upwards also irks a bit if a person finds that he gets 10s. a week more if he is a warrant officer or Class II tradesman and then finds that the R.Q.M.S. on normal rates gets the same as himself.

It is the removal of this differentiation where it has existed which has had an acute effect on the morale and good feeling in the Army. If the Under-Secretary thinks that I am exaggerating, and it may well be that he does, I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I am quite willing to discuss this privately with him. I assure him that this new Command Paper will create in the long run as many problems for him as it solves. It is clear that the rates in it are involving the various Services in competing against one another, with the Royal Corps of Signals and R.E.M.E. competing against the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the R.A.S.C. I do not know who the hon. Gentleman wants to win, but one chap can only go into one arm of the Service.

I turn now to the star system. I do not think that this was an idea which necessarily had to last for ever, and I do not claim credit for it because it happened to be introduced in the time of a Labour administration. I am quite willing to believe that it would have been introduced if the Conservatives had won in 1945. I think that the introduction of the star system, putting the combatant soldier on the same basis as the tradesman, was a step forward. I have taken the trouble to work through the various debates which took place on this subject, and I cannot do better than quote from Lieut.-Colonel Corbett, then the Member for Ludlow, who, in a debate in April, 1946, said: I must … congratulate the War Office on introducing stars as co-partners with stripes for incentive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 2374.] I think that there is a great deal in that and in the combatant soldier feeling that there was something worth while in it.

I cannot for the life me understand what is behind the throwing overboard of the star system, because I cannot see that the advantage of doing so is so great or that the cost of retaining it would have been so great. I must use my words carefully, and I do not want to talk about breaking faith, but I do not see the advantage of doing what this seems to be doing, namely, altering a reform which was so essential in terms of giving the combatant soldier prestige.

I turn to one or two other anomalies. Again, I understand and sympathise with the Treasury point of view—because I am sure that it was not the Army's — which denied the National Service man receiving any increase. But what about the young National Service officer, serving in the same mess, having to live the same sort of life, with the same sort of expenses as the Regular officer? He is on very different rates of pay and not feeling very happy about being there anyway, because National Service is coming to an end, and to some extent feeling financial embarrassment, because it may well be that as rates of pay go up so mess charges and the standards of living go up. I suppose that one can argue that the National Service man could apply for a Regular commission, but I do not think that that is a very effective answer. I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary that the War Office has considered this problem.

I want to deal with two or three other cases. We heard yesterday about the new career structure and how the War Office proposed to erect, as it were, a ladder half way through their career to enable the warrant officer, N.C.O. or young man who has perhaps missed his first selection period to gain a commission. I invite the attention of the Secretary of State for War to those men who have got commissions, either quartermaster-class commissions or extended short-service commissions, so that he can see how they are treated. I am not asking him to give me answers now. I shall not inflict on the Committee a number of cases I have which reek of hardship on men who have been forced out into civilian life a few days or weeks short of the period when they might get retirement pay.

I am sure that the Secretary of State and everyone in a position of responsibility for chaps under their command would want to put this right. I am also sure that the reason why they cannot put it right is 'because of an anonymous Mr. So-and-So sitting in the Treasury. I have no hopes of getting this redressed, but perhaps the Under-Secretary would be kind enough to let me give him details of these cases so that I can answer back, although not, as I say, with any hope at all for the poor chaps who feel themselves done down. But water wears away a stone and perhaps it may be that, in the long run, we can get some of these matters put right.

It is an excellent thing that we are getting this biennial review, but before we have the next one there ought to be a really serious attempt towards simplification. Anyone who argues that the new White Paper is simpler than the old might reach that conclusion if he just totted up the number of rates of pay that a private soldier can draw; but that is perhaps inherent in the complexity of our society. The simplicity which I aim for is not born of that. It is that anyone in the Army, from a field marshal to the most recently joined private, should be able to know which of the fifty rates of pay he is entitled to. I defy anyone to be quite sure what the White Paper means. I should like to think that the Under-Secretary would suggest to the Secretary of State that a popular booklet should be published, explaining to the troops what it is all about, because it may well be that some of the belly-aches that I have are misconceived. It may be that I have not the facts.

On the other hand, if what I think is right, that there is something to hide, then my suggestion will not be very popular. I should like to put it to the Under-Secretary. I am sure that he is a kind and innocent man and would not be a party to this. But he has not watched the Treasury for so long as I have. Whenever I see the Treasury giving anything, I always look for the hook—and I have never been disappointed. I think that the troops are entitled to know what this is all about. If there are some hooks, and I am sure there are, the quicker they are discovered the better it will be for the Army.

8.50 p.m.

Brigadier Sir Otho Prior-Palmer (Worthing)

Following on what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said about soldiers not knowing what they are entitled to, I raised a matter about three years ago and I did not raise it yesterday because I thought tonight would be a more appropriate time. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to look at this point to see whether the system is still in operation in the Army or whether it has been abolished. I am referring to the question which arises when there is overpayment either of allowances or pay to a soldier. The hon. Member for Dudley said that it is extremely hard for anyone to know what he is entitled to. A soldier is only too grateful to get what he is given and does not go into the amount too carefully to see whether or not he has been overpaid. Perhaps, as has happened over and over again, three months, six months or nine months later he receives a chit stating that he was overpaid £X and will he please refund it.

I know of many things which upset soldiers in the Army, but I know of nothing which upsets them quite as much as that, because on Thursday evening they have little left of last week's pay let alone nine months later when they are asked to refund the money. I should like to know whether anything has been done about this. I believe that the one who should repay the money is the clerk in the pay office who made the mistake, not the unfortunate soldier.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

Is the Minister in a position to deal with a question about which I have written to him and which arises out of the doubt which people in the Army sometimes feel about their pay? That is the position of the doctors in the R.A.M.C., where there seems to be a large discrepancy between those with Regular commissions and those who enter under National Service. Since they do the same work, this is unsettling. Could the Minister deal with that point? It would be helpful if he could say a word on it.

8.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser)

We have not long in which to got through the large number of Votes, so I will be as brief as I can in replying to the points made. On the first point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) on the National Service Grant, there is no change of policy—it is merely due to a diminishing number of people.

Mr. Mulley

Is there any question of the rates being revised as far as the hon. Gentleman knows?

Mr. Fraser

Without saying that the Treasury is a sinister influence, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) put it, I am afraid the answer to that question is no. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of technicians. I do not believe that this is clumsy. It is the best way to deal with it. The numbers involved are comparatively small. I could let the hon. Gentleman have the actual percentage, but the technician today is, for example, an armament artificer who is a fairly rare bird. The hon. Gentleman also asked about paying money to troops by other methods. We have tried other methods but we have found that the present system is the most effective way. However, commanding officers and pay officers now make arrangements whereby a man can if necessary get his pay at the time he wishes, and we make it as agreeable as possible for the individual concerned.

The hon. Member for Dudley, as usual, made a profound historical attack on past administration. I can say that there is no intention on the part of this Government, which has given £5 million by way of pay increases, to welsh on the Army. Nor, looking round the crowded Committee tonight, do I feel there is much danger of what happened in 1894, when Lord Rosebery's Government fell on the cordite Vote in the Army Estimates.

Now I will try to answer some of the rather complex points made. The hon. Gentleman always has himself as an alter ego. One of the colonels, so to speak, was demanding that there should be a greater simplification and the other was demanding that there should be differentials. Of course this leads to some conflict. He posed the problem nicely. There is as shown by the two sections of his speech a continuous problem in Army pay, the question of simplification and the question of differentials. There is always the difficulty of simplification and of fairness to the individual.

We think we have got it fairly right. Pay is complicated, but we cannot simplify it much beyond what we have already done. We have kept the number of scales, but we have reduced the number of groups from five to four. I believe that the total number of rates of pay has come down from about 260 to about 160 or 120. I may be wrong in the precise figures, but there has been a considerable reduction in the rates of pay. He talked, quite rightly, about the problem of pay and seeing that the fighting soldier keeps up with the tradesman. He argued in the first part of his speech that it was a bad thing that it was the driver who should be let down, who used to be a tradesman in the B class, I believe, or lower B.

Mr. Wigg

The driver mechanic of Army Order 325 is in Group E, but that is a detail. It is not a question of letting men down. My argument was not that but that the War Office gave those who had already got it reserved rights, so that they continue to draw it even after they have been declassified.

Mr. Fraser

I see that point. The hon. Gentleman was also making a point about the rates of pay of fighting soldiers. He said that the star system entailed greater equality between the various types of tradesmen and—to put a quick word to it— the fighting soldier. He said that in 1946 it was brought into the three star system. The trouble was that the system quickly started breaking down because of the need of differentials. In a speech last year, the hon. Gentleman said he was sure that the Secretary of State must make greater use of the differential. What was the trouble by 1948? The number of stars had risen to six—the star being a point of excellence. By 1948—also under the late Labour Government—it was impossible for the ordinary fighting soldier, unless he was in a superior rank, to get six stars. He could only get five.

In 1954 we brought the system up to seven stars. At this stage, all I can say —without wearying the House in explaining complicated technicalities—is that the fighting sergeant is helped to get a considerable advantage under this review. The two people who will most benefit are fighting soldiers of sergeant's rank and above, and the technicians. They are the two chief gainers from this very good pay code, which involves some £5 million.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about extended service commissions. These are matters not of right but of privilege. Therefore, they must rest on individual cases; but I will consider any such cases he might care to bring forward.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) raised the question of over-payment. We have given commands power to remit it if the recalled overpayment from the soldier should cause hardship. That will cause some benefit. We are shortly installing an electronic calculating machine, at a cost of several hundred thousand pounds, which will undoubtedly make either a mass of errors which will put every one in credit to the tune of millions, or, as I hope, will avoid the nine months delay we have suffered on occasion in the past.

I will note the remarks made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and will write him, because this applies very much to individual and specific cases.

Mr. Wigg

Is the hon. Gentleman to say anything about the poor National Service officer?

Mr. Fraser

I have been into this question of the difficulty of the National Service officer in mess with some care, and the Army has kept close watch, because this could be a dangerous situation. There are about 2,000 National Service men who are second lieutenants. We have certain rules. The mess subscription is limited to ten days pay of the rank per year. Mess maintenance is limited to £1 a month and extra messing must not exceed 2s. 6d. a day. There is no maximum for mess entertainment of guests, but commanding officers see that no undue burden is put on the mess. Various miscellaneous charges, like batman and laundry and so forth, have to be added, so that the total amount is above £7 per month, while the pay of a second lieutenant is about £22 per month, so although he obviously cannot enjoy the same standard of living as his Regular fellow officers, he is not in a position of missing out. For £7 a month he can live in mess and join in guest nights, leaving him with £15 or £16 in his pocket. I think that the large number of National Service officers find that the system is working reasonably well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That a sum, not exceeding £127,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c, of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.