HC Deb 21 February 1978 vol 944 cc1196-8
8. Mr. Litterick

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Armed Services' Pay Review body are serving members of the Armed Services; and what are their military ranks.

Mr. Mulley

None, Sir.

Mr. Litterick

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be at least a minimum recognition of the intelligence, sense of responsibility and dignity of members of the Armed Forces if the body which determined their rates of pay and conditions of service were at least as representative as in the case of an agricultural wages board or a wages council?

Mr. Mulley

Members of the Review Body report to and are appointed by the Prime Minister. It has been the view of successive Governments that appointing to an independent Review Body a person who would benefit as a result of its deliberations would reduce its independent status. For that reason, while there are people with wide experience of all manner of wages negotiations on the body, there are no representatives of persons whose pay and conditions are under consideration.

Sir T. Kitson

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Review Body to make inquiries to discover how many Service men are financially worse off in the Forces than they would be if they were unemployed?

Mr. Mulley

With respect, that is not a helpful question. It is within the remit of the Review Body, under the practice of successive Governments, to publish what it considers to be comparable rates of pay. Anyone can then take those figures and see whether unemployment pay is better. Of course, unemployment pay and supplementary benefits depend on family circumstances, while military salaries, like all others, including the salaries of hon. Members, are unrelated to the marital status of employees.

Mr. Crawshaw

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the composition of the Review Body, it is about time that we did something to raise the wages of people serving in the Armed Forces to something commensurate with what other people in the country are getting? Is it right that we should constantly call upon people to serve the country and to do jobs in times of emergency that no one else wishes to do and treat them in the way that we are treating them?

Mr. Mulley

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure he knows that it is the Government's desire and intention to restore comparability at the earliest possible time, but it is impossible to speculate on what the recommendations of the Review Body will be or to form a view on them before they are made.

Sir Ian Gilmour

Since both the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of State have admitted that the Review Body has to abide by Government policy, will the Secretary of State explain why the White Paper virtually ignores the pay of the Armed Forces and why he has not set out the Government's policy to restore comparability of the Armed Forces' pay?

Mr. Mulley

Quite obviously, any White Paper that is published, as the normal procedures of the House require, in February before the end of the financial year cannot take into account the report of a body that is not due to report until March and whose decisions will not be effective until the next financial year. Quite obviously, I could not in the current defence White Paper include anything about the forthcoming pay review.

Sir Ian Gilmour

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the White Paper is concerned only with what happens up to March? Of course it relates to the coming year, and he knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Mulley

I know that perfectly well, but I do not think that it would be of any help to anyone if I tried to anticipate what the Pay Review Body would produce in its report next month.