HC Deb 20 March 1978 vol 946 cc1202-21

2.43 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale (Harwich)

My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), who spoke from the Opposition Dispatch Box in the previous debate, spoke of its being the mid-shift for miners. For the Services it is something to which we are quite accustomed. We are used to mounting night operations, some which are extremely distasteful but as far as I can remember this is the first night operation that we have initiated on Services pay. However as a Services Minister I often had to reply in the early hours of the morning to debates on subjects other than pay.

I particularly want to raise the question of Services pay because it is one of the simmering discontents which, if allowed to continue, could be extremely serious for our country. It was raised by many hon. Members both sides of the House in last week's defence debate. The under-payment of those in the Services is so serious that I regard it as a vital duty for all of us to make the Government aware of our very strong feelings and of how important it is that the matter be corrected at the earliest possible moment.

The fact that so many of my hon. Friends should be present for this debate, even though it takes place in the early hours of the morning, is further proof of the seriousness with which we regard the matter.

In a sense, we as Members of Parliament are the trade unions of the Services, but of late we have allowed the Government to treat them in a mean and niggardly way. We must all take responsibility, but no one more so than the Government and the Service Ministers. We expect Service men at a moment's notice to be the nation's emergency force to deal with crises such as the firemen's strike, although Service men receive much less in pay than do the firemen. No one who visited the Service men on duty during the firemen's strike could fail to have the greatest admiration for the fortitude with which they carried out their work, without any grouse except the usual Service man's grouse, expressed with the best of humour, about his pay.

We expect the Services to be the nation's emergency work force and, indeed, the cheapest. Forces pay deals tend to be economic conjuring tricks. A small rise is given and increased messing charges and reduced allowances take it back. The Adjutant-General, Sir Jack Harman, says: Compared with civilian earnings the Services are between 15 per cent, and 20 per cent, behind. We shall fall behind further if we only get the 10 per cent, which is recommended under the pay policy. It is unprecedented for an Army chief to speak out publicly in such matters, but this underlines the seriousness of the present situation regarding Service pay.

What does this mean in human terms? I was surprised to hear about some of the examples that I shall now relate to the House, but I have written to the Secretary of State to confirm that these are the facts. It surprised me to learn that the average pay of a manual worker is nearly £80 a week and the average pay of a Service man is £23 less. A lieutenant commanding a troop of tanks in Germany gets £80 a week, less than most long-distance lorry drivers. A Royal Air Force pilot piloting a £3 million Phantom gets less than a bus driver.

We must look after our lower-paid other ranks as well. On some occasions soldiers in Northern Ireland are earning only about 33p an hour. This is a scandal. We cannot be complacent about it. Nearly 5,000 soldiers are getting rent and rate rebates. It disturbed me greatly as an ex-Service man to hear these facts. Sixty per cent, of RAF wives have to go out to work. To make more money, troops are moonlighting. There have been cases of young Staff College majors taking jobs as minicab drivers in Camberley. These examples make me wonder how Service Ministers feel.

A brigadier responsible for 6,000 men may earn no more than some of the better paid London printing workers, yet he is expected to subsidise official entertainment out of his own pocket.

My final example is from the case book of the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Families Association. It concerns a Royal Air Force senior aircraftsman, a fireman driver, with 11 years' service. He is married and has three children, aged 7, 5 and 1. His weekly gross pay including rent totals £56.80. Rent amounts to £8.26, national insurance £2.75, tax £6.75, gas £4.50, electricity £2, school meals £2.50, hire purchase £2, insurance premium £1, travelling expenses £1.50, and food for five at £4.80, each, £24—a total of £55.26. The remainder for clothes and everything else is £1.54.

Not surprisingly, this family never goes out and has not had a holiday for the last five years. This really is an appalling story, and one should not have to be speaking in the House about this kind of budget when at the same time we expect the Service man to face all sorts of dangers with fortitude.

At many camps, wives run second-hand clothing shops. Is it a wonder that family life is breaking down? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) said recently, families are being faced with the choice: heat or eat? In garrison towns the effects of Service pay slippages are painfully obvious.

I was so surprised to see the statement that I am about to give that I sought to get it checked with tie Secretary of State for Defence. It was not commented upon and was not denied. The statement was: "You can easily spot the Service families now. They are the shabby ones standing outside the shops." That is a comment on the Service town of Aldershot. This is a most disturbing situation, and I am glad to have this opportunity to draw attention to it.

But what has been the result of all this? It is no wonder that 6,000 Army officers and men have quit during the past year. The queue for RAF pilots wishing to quit is so long that they must wait at least five years before applications are allowed. Last year, 4,718 RAF men left for reasons other than completion of service. That is nearly 6 per cent, of the total.

It was stated in the other place today that 18,000 out of 100,000 Service houses are unoccupied. What a story this is when we consider, against this background the youth unemployment that there is in the country. The Secretary of State for Defence and the Service Ministers should be encouraging more youth to enter the Services. It is remarkable that at least one of the Service Ministers should not have resigned because of the appalling situation that faces the Services at the present moment.

What is to be done? First, we must realise that Service men cannot earn overtime, however many hours they work. They are not entitled to productivity deals, or to claims for unsocial hours. No one can conduct wage negotiations or threaten industrial action. It is up to the Armed Services Pay Review Body to make its recommendations, which it will on 1st April. I hope that we shall see an effective pay increase at that time. I hope that the Government will not hide behind the review body because of Government pay policy.

What disturbs me is that the situation should have been allowed to deteriorate so badly since the last pay review, and that the Service Ministers in particular should have been extremely complacent about the situation that has arisen. Have not they realised that troops are on the poverty line? To have allowed such a situation to arise shows a degree of negligence which is indefensible. Indeed, the complacency of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army disturbs me. I consider that he should have been far more sensitive to the feelings of the Services than he appears to be.

It is vital that the review body should set out in its report what increases are needed to restore comparability and thus to restore the military salary to its proper level.

If, because of a period of pay restraint, it is not possible to pay at once the correct increase, why cannot the Government look at allowances? After all, it is only comparatively recently that rent, food and travel were included in gross pay. When I was in the Services we were allowed rent, food and travel allowances much more than today, and they were not taxable. This is a possibility that the Government should look at with a degree of imagination to see whether any improvement can be made.

I hope that the review body will say what the proper level of pay for the Services should be and then leave it to the Government to decide how it is to be achieved. For instance, why cannot the allowance for serving in Northern Ireland be increased? The allowance of 50p a day has not been changed for four years. This is a great condemnation of the administration of the Services today.

If trade unions are allowed productivity deals in the present period of wage restraint, I am sure that they would not object to Service men having certain items of their pay treated as allowances. This would be following the precedent of the past and that of our own pay position as Members of Parliament. In considering a practical matter of this kind, we have to think how we are being treated ourselves and how we treat the Services.

I am certain that some improvement has to be made in this sector. The Armed Services and the police are unique. The State relies upon them for its security, and they do not have the right to strike. Therefore, the State owes them a special duty. We must find a solution now.

I welcome the fact that we have had this debate, and I hope that we shall see a degree of imagination from the Government in dealing with this problem which we have certainly not had up till now.

2.58 a.m.

Sir Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks)

The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) for raising at this late hour the problems of Service pay. As Catterick garrison forms part of my constituency, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the subject.

There are few problems in my constituency which give me greater concern than the disturbing situation affecting young married couples stationed there. Recently, I have visited a number of families who are living under grave financial strain and whose present position is quite intolerable.

I begin by pointing out the situation facing a large number of families in the Catterick area. One example that I take is the case of a signalman aged 25, married with two children and living in married quarters at Catterick camp. Before joining the Army, he was earning £85 a week as a labourer. He lost his job and became unemployed. He was drawing £35 a week on the dole. In addition, he had a rent allowance, free milk and free prescriptions.

As a signalman in the Army, his gross pay is £46.16. He takes home £33, and he draws £2.50 family allowance. But because of the high rent for his quarters and expensive heating, which is done by electricity, all that he has to spend on food is £12 a week. Neither he nor his wife has been able to buy any new clothes for more than a year; they have had no entertainment or holidays, and the last occasion on which they went out together was on their wedding anniversary, last May, before he went into the Army.

He is now confronted with an electricity bill of £33.48, which somehow or other he has to pay. He has signed on for nine years and his present rate of pay is exactly £7 a week less than that which he received in civvy street, drawing the dole. Yet he was the leading recruit of his intake when he went to Catterick.

I cannot believe that this situation can be allowed to continue. Like many others in the Army, this signalman is getting further and further into debt week by week.

Another example I quote is that of a private with a wife and three children, one a small baby a few months old. He joined the Army five years ago, and has had three terms in Northern Ireland. He is £2 a week worse off, with no free milk and prescriptions, than he was before he joined the Army when he was on the dole. Both the signalman and the private spent some time fire-fighting during the firemen's strike.

These men have no opportunity to earn any overtime to relieve their financial situation and, as both have young children, their wives are unable to go to work to supplement the family income. During the past year, the welfare officers at Catterick have dealt with 406 cases of soldiers' marriages breaking up. While one recognises that there are a number of domestic reasons for this, I am informed that a large number have been brought about by the precarious and insecure financial situation that young soldiers and their wives find themselves in at present. They are quite unable to cope financially. This is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. The Minister must help them, and recognise their special circumstances.

After the last pay increase, charges for quarters were increased substantially. At Catterick many of the quarters have electric central heating. In January this year there were 260 final demand notices issued by the North-Eastern Electricity Board to soldiers in Catterick. Many of these were paid, one way or another, but a substantial number remained unpaid. I suspect that when the spring demands come, the situation will be even worse.

I quote some examples of soldiers' pay, allowances and charges. A signalman who is in the Army for three years, has no children and a B type quarter has gross pay of £41.26, with income tax of £5.60, national insurance of £2.03 and quartering charges of £8.26. His net entitlement is £25.37.

A private with 12 years' service, three children and a C type quarter receives gross pay of £53.90. His income tax is £5.26, national insurance £2.76, and quartering charges £9.59. His net entitlement is £36.29. He gets £2.31 rent rebate, £4 allowance for his children, and ends up with £42.60—once again worse off in the Army than on the dole.

A lance-corporal whose engagement is for nine years, and who has one child receives gross pay of £56.81. His income tax is £8.55, his national insurance £2.80 and quartering charges £8.56. His net entitlement is £36.90. With a rent rebate of £3 and child allowance of £1, his total income is £40.91. Again, he would be better off on the dole.

The situation in the Catterick area is totally unsatisfactory, as it is in all other military camps. Morale is low, and the number of Service men, particularly at non-commissioned officer level, trying to get out of the Army is quite appalling. Recently one regiment's NCOs met in Catterick to discuss the plans for the next winter operations. There were 106 present. I understand that 90 of them were hoping to have left the Army by the end of this year.

I am concerned not only about the young married privates and signalmen stationed at Catterick but about the whole structure of pay in the Armed Forces. If the Government feel that a 10 per cent, increase would resolve the situation, they must be out of their minds. The last pay award to the Armed Services was given with one hand and taken away with the other. I know of many families living on the bread line in Catterick. They have young families, but a pram would be a luxury. There are those who buy either newspapers or lavatory paper and are prepared to admit to this. A night out is unheard of. Many wives cut themselves to one meal a day to try to keep within their budgets.

I have represented the Richmond constituency since 1959, and I know through my mail bag and surgeries and from telephone calls at weekends that the present pay situation at Catterick is quite intolerable, and unless the Minister is prepared to argue forcefully for a special situation, the position is likely to deteriorate even more within the next few months. Something must be done soon, and it must be recognised that Service pay is a special situation.

3.8 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie (Chertsey and Walton)

I can well imagine the groans of dismay that went up in the Minister's office when my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) announced that he would raise this subject, because it is a subject which, no doubt to the Government's regret, simply will not go away. No matter how many times it is raised—my hon. Friend pointed out that it was mentioned many times in the debate on the White Paper last week—no matter how close we may be to the report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, this subject will not just go away.

We are very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich, as we are to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson), who made an excellent speech. They have given us some chilling examples of the problems that Service men face. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich spoke of secondhand clothing shops and of the phrase "heating or eating", which we first heard in last week's debate. We have heard that the Service families in Aldershot tend to be the shabby ones standing outside shop doors.

My hon. Friend accused the Government of an indefensible degree of negligence. I am thinking of the point that he made about the allowance in Northern Ireland having remained for four years at 50p a day. Not only is that a ludicrous figure; the fact that it has remained at that level for four years is a comment on the degree of priority. No Service man or woman would wish to be singled out as a special case, but the Services do not wish to suffer to the degree they have.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond described the case of a signalman at Catterick who is £7 a week worse off now than he was a year ago, and he added that the man in question was getting further into debt.

We also heard about the 260 final demand notices from the local electricity board. One can attend meetings in sergeants' messes in which, out of 106 sergeants present, 90 say "I am not interested in the winter's programme, because I hope that by that time comes I shall be out of the Service." It is a fantastic situation. It is right that such examples should be put forward, because the disciplined Services are now facing a deplorable mosaic of suffering. The question that the Government must face is how long those Service men and women will put up with the position.

If the Armed Services Pay Review Body is to retain any credibility, it must make its report after analysing all the facts. The report must state how much needs to be paid to Service personnel to restore their comparability. In the last three years that comparability has been not so much eroded as destroyed. It is a lack of comparability that is so serious that a sizeable proportion of Service men are now drawing social security benefits. In yesterday's Press we read about a pay reform movement in the Royal Navy. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy is to reply to this debate.

I wish to quote from The Sunday Telegraph of yesterday, in which its defence correspondent said: The wife of a leading seaman, whose husband had been paid the day before, said: 'I have settled the household bills and bought the bare essential groceries. I am left with 30p in my purse to cover everything else for the rest of the week.' The article continued: Others laughed when I asked about buying children's clothes or paying for family outings. 'There is nothing left for clothes,' they said. 'Not even for a bag of sweets for the kiddies. Towards the end of the week we can't afford bus fares.' He continued a little later: Half the wives I met said their husbands had either decided to leave the Navy or were seriously considering it. The next Services' pay award next month would be the critical factor. Indeed, it will be the critical factor.

There are far too many such examples. No doubt it will be said they are rare examples of special cases which could be looked at, but when we have reached a situation when 40 per cent, of the people in the lower ranks are drawing social security benefits, that is obviously the norm rather than the exception. I imagine that most of my hon. Friends—not all—would be ashamed to be Ministers in a Government who presided over such a situation.

The recent White Paper, despite its attempted blandness, contained some revealing information in two paragraphs on the subject of manpower. I refer to para 404, on recruiting and para 409, on wastage. Para 404 reveals a serious shortfall in recruiting, especially to the Royal Air Force. In certain grades, such as pilots, the shortage is said to be spectacular, which is the only word I can use for it.

In paragraph 409 there is revealed a seriously high level of wastage from the Army and the Royal Air Force. I concede that according to the White Paper that is not so from the Navy. However, from the examples that I have given from the newspapers, which one has to take at face value, it is obvious that it will not be long, sadly before the Navy catches up with the record of the other two Services. Premature voluntary retirement, as it is called, is running at record levels. These are all facts that cannot be ignored.

There has not been a Service Minister who has ever accepted that morale is not all that it should be. Morale is one of those splendid things that is always all right. There is no chart, no graph and no "grinometer" to register the number of people smiling. No one appears on a stage and asks "Are you all happy?" I should fear for anyone's safety who did that. However, the evidence on recruiting and wastage shows anyone who has half an eye to see the whole story about morale in the Armed Forces at present. We are not recruiting at one end, and we are losing men at the other; that is all that we need to know. It is not necessary to be clairvoyant to realise that morale is at a record low level.

All this means that Service men, with their characteristic restraint and discipline, are coming to attention, turning to the right, saluting and falling out—or, in civilian parlance, voting with their feet. We would have to go a long way back in our history to find a situation in which there has been such bitterness and resentment in the Armed Forces. The difference nowadays is that, unlike some stages in our history, we are not living ing the age of the press gang. Service men are intelligent professionals. They are highly motivated, with a great sense of duty. They join because the Armed Forces are a calling where the pursuit of excellence is still considered desirable for its own sake. They have a sense of belonging—or they had.

The effect of scandalously inadequate pay is extremely corrosive in putting Service men in an intolerable financial position and in the effect that it has on them in carrying out their jobs. They cannot be expected to do their jobs properly if they are as concerned and anxious as they undoubtedly are about their circumstances.

The position of Service chiefs and other senior officers is being completely undermined. Senior officers now find it harder to give the moral leadership that is expected of them. By the same token, support for the hierarchy, which used to be automatic, may no longer be taken for granted. These are matters that must not be underestimated. It is the other effect of inadequate pay and conditions.

Service men look at their pay levels and conditions and say "So this is how we are valued by society". As they are volunteers, and as they are openly pursuing military excellence for its own sake, they say "We are mugs. We are being taken along for a ride". As I have said, they vote with their feet.

Even gratuities at the end of engagements have felt the icy grasp of retrospective legislation. There is no other group in society that would have allowed itself to be treated as the Government have treated the Services. It is because the Services take on a special liability that they look to Governments to do the right thing by them. It has taken the present Government to achieve virtual unionisation of the police. That would have been unthinkable five years ago. We must no longer take the Services for granted. We must now give them the treatment that is long overdue to them.

3.20 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy)

This debate, following closely on last week's debate on the Defence Estimates, has illustrated again the widespread concern which is aroused by the subject of Forces pay. That concern was impressively reflected by the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) and by his hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) and Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie). All that they said will be carefully weighed. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army for what was said by the hon. Member for Richmond about his findings at Catterick. There is no question whatsoever about any lack of concern on either side of the House, certainly not by anyone present now.

I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Harwich took the opportunity to initiate this debate. There was no question of any Minister in the Department being querulous when deciding who should reply to the debate. Frankly, although there was no competition, perhaps that was because I quickly elected to undertake this task, and I was very happy to do it.

I am always discussing pay. I never visit a Service unit without the question of pay coming up. I am finding that more than anything else nowadays. Therefore, I understand the importance of the subject. In view of my experience in recent months visiting ships and shore establishments—last week I was in Cornwall at a naval air station—I felt that I could discuss this subject with hon. Gentlemen. Therefore, I was pleased to have this opportunity to reply to the debate.

I want to help the House by clarifying some of the issues involved. I realise that I do not need to clarify them for the benefit of hon. Gentlemen present, because they know as much about this subject as I do. But I should like to make it clear, for those who cannot be with us but who follow the record, that, the debate goes on outside the House. Therefore, I hope that, the House will bear with me if I go over some ground that is all too familiar to hon. Gentlemen who are present.

I cannot anticipate the contents of the report that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body will shortly submit to the Prime Minister or comment on the Government's consideration of its recommendations. I recognise the strength of feeling on this subject, among not only hon. Members but Service men everywhere. I accept that it has had some effect on morale, high as it nevertheless still remains. Whether there has been the corrosive effect on morale suggested by the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton, I do not know. I shall want to look at that matter more closely and draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

I take the point about the significance of recruitment and premature voluntary retirement causing a drop in morale. That factor no doubt influences to a varying extent those who apply to leave the Forces on premature voluntary retirement. Our information suggests that there are other motives as well. However, I do not discount the significance of morale.

In the light of this information, it is important that this issue be treated with the seriousness that hon. Gentlemen have brought to it tonight and that it should not be made the occasion for scoring party political points. I hope that it will not be made the object of exaggeration. I wondered whether one or two of the illustrations put forward tonight corresponded to reality. Nevertheless, I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friends who will want to look into them.

I was surprised at the description attributed by the hon. Member for Harwich to soldiers' families in Aldershot standing outside shops being the shabbiest people. I was appalled to hear that that might be the situation, and I shall want to pursue that matter myself. I mention that matter because, in the event that it has been slightly overdone, I hope that we shall be careful not to indulge in exaggeration.

Mr. Ridsdale

For that reason I sent the information to the Secretary of State before making that remark. I did not receive an answer.

Mr. Duffy

I shall follow that through, because it is a serious matter.

It is essential to look carefully at the basis of Service pay and charges and to understand the complicated process and principles involved. We have done this before and in some quarters we have been criticised for being didactic. I have no doubt that we shall be again.

Without the clearest understanding of how Service pay and charges are fixed, all kinds of misconceptions and misrepresentations arise. Before 1970 Service men received a combination of pay, allowances and benefits in kind which differed for single and married men. In 1970 this system was changed. From that time married and single Service men received the rate for the job.

Service pay rates were determined by reference to civilian analogues and in general costs of food and accommodation, also based on civilian comparisons, had to be met out of pay.

Reference is often made in the House and in the Press to the special supplement known as the X factor, but it is not always fully understood. This is a payment to offset the balance of disadvantages over the advantages of Service life. Examples of the advantages are the opportunities to travel, generous leave allowances and job security compared with most civilian employment. The disadvantages embrace military discipline, exposure to danger and turbulence which the family of the Service man experiences as much as does the individual himself. Service men certainly work long hours in those ships that I have visited at sea.

The balance of the disadvantages over the advantages was originally valued at 5 per cent, of basic pay, but this was increased to 10 per cent, in 1974. This X factor, together with the rate for the job based on civilian analogues, makes what is known as the military salary.

In 1975 the Labour Government restored the military salary to its proper value after it had been lost under the statutory incomes policy of the previous Conservative Government. Hon. Members will recall the serious national economic situation which led to the introduction of the current pay restraints, under policies based not on statutory compulsion but on a voluntary agreement between the Government and the TUC. The success of these policies has rested on their application to all groups.

The reduction in the rate of inflation from 30 per cent, to under 10 per cent, and the increasing confidence overseas in Britain's prospects are plain for all to see. A price has had to be paid for this success. Over the last two and a half years most members of the community have suffered a reduction in living standards. Service men have been no exception.

The review body pointed out in its 1977 report that Service men had fallen behind their civilian counterparts. The reasons for that have been stated frequently and I shall not repeat them. The Government fully accept that this is so. We have promised repeatedly that we shall restore the military salary to its proper level as soon as pay policy permits. As I have said, this is what we did in 1975 and we shall do it again.

We have been subjected to criticism by some Conservative Members because we have refused to restore comparability immediately without any regard for pay policy. Unlike some of those critics, we on the Government side of the House do not claim any monopoly of concern for the Armed Forces, but I assure the House that we are as anxious as is any Opposition Member that the Services should receive the proper rate for the job that they do.

Mr. Pattie

Does the Minister accept that when we are talking about pay policy we are talking about something that has been engineered by negotiations and discussions with the TUC, and that one thing that the Services do not have—and we are glad that they do not have—is industrial muscle? Does that not mean that there is a clear case and an opportunity now for the Government to make the exception which everyone in the country would feel was acceptable?

Mr. Duffy

I do not, and I shall say a word about any settlement that will be arrived at during the next few weeks having to be set within the current pay policy. That does not mean that in the absence of industrial muscle the Services should feel that they do not have political muscle. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all possible representations that could be made on behalf of the Services have been made, are being made, and will continue to be made. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said last Monday, we must also be concerned about the health of our economy as a whole, on which our defence effort and individual prosperity ultimately depend.

Let me take up briefly the two points that have been put forward by all previous speakers. The hon. Gentleman said that 40 per cent, of lower ranks draw social security benefits. This is not so. The latest figures of the number of Service men receiving rent and rate rebates is about 3 per cent, of the total strength. We do not know precisely how many Service men receive other social security benefits, but the Department of Health and Social Security has produced estimates which suggest that only a handful of Service families receive family income supplement. The increase that has taken place in the numbers drawing rent and rate rebates is due in part to the increase in entitlement. Though I should not want the hon. Gentleman to think I was in any way minimising the trend, it is its strength that we have to be careful to determine.

On the question of Northern Ireland pay, the hon. Gentleman said that allowances should be used imaginatively when payments cannot be made. I have already explained that the concept of military salary does not allow that to be done.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Northern Ireland allowance. I draw his attention to the exchanges that took place in the House between my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr Mates) last week, when the hon. Gentleman suggested that Northern Ireland pay could be increased outside pay policy because Any allowances set against extra expense are not subject to the policy …"—[Official Report, 13th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 336.] My right hon. Friend said that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in his assumption. Northern Ireland pay is not a reimbursement allowance; it was introduced in 1974 in recognition of the long unsocial hours—long even by Service standards—which have to be worked there. As such, it is part of pay and falls to be considered within pay policy.

Mr. Ridsdale

Will the Minister not be so didactic about military pay and regard it as a gross salary when precedents show that allowances could be increased to get round many of the difficulties faced by Service families?

Mr. Duffy

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will leave that with me. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my colleagues and see what scope exists for doing as he suggests.

Time and again when talking to Service men and hon. Members I have to stress that the pay review body is free to make whatever recommendations it thinks fit. It is indeed independent. The Government are also free to give whatever advice they think right. However, that does not detract from the body's obligation to weigh that advice and all the other evidence before it and making its own decision and recommendations. It is for the Government to decide on the implementation of the recommendations.

Mr. Churchill (Stretford)

We on the Opposition Benches endorse what the Minister said. He will be the first to concede that that is not the position that has been understood by the body in recent years. It felt that it was at liberty to make recommendations only within the Government's guidelines. It is of the first importance that it should feel free to recommend the true comparability of salary and leave it to the Government to decide whether it is possible to implement that.

Can the Minister explain why we saw today on the boardings and billboards around the Palace of Westminster that bus conductors are to be paid £100 a week—more than double what soldiers facing IRA bullets in Northern Ireland receive? How does he explain that?

Can he also explain why the Government have found it possible to make an exception for the firemen and exempt them from pay policy in the coming year but have not found it possible to make a similar exemption for the Armed Forces? Is it just that they have not been on strike and do not have a union?

Mr. Duffy

I saw the pay rates for London Transport conductors in the Evening Standard and I was as startled as was the hon. Gentleman.

On his second point, the firemen's settlement is being phased and is within the pay guidelines. The settlement arrived at for the Armed Forces will also have to be within the guidelines. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go further. I cannot anticipate what the settlement might be. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I do not think that it was improper for him to have done so.

Sir T. Kitson

We are grateful for the way in which the Minister has answered the debate, but may I ask that when he talks about pay recommendations under the guidelines he bears in mind that one special group—privates and signalmen, particularly the young married men—face special difficulties, and the experience in my constituency is that a 10 per cent, increase will just not cover their problems?

I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister faces in relation to the Government's guidelines, but they will not solve the problem and should not be taken as an overall increase. Will the Minister go back to the review body, talk on these lines and point out the special difficulties faced by the people to whom I have referred?

Mr. Duffy

Among the notes that I made during the speeches were two starred items concerning Service families in Aldershot and signalmen at Catterick. I certainly intend to raise both issues with my right hon. Friend and, indeed, with other Service Ministers. In fact, the Secretary of State is most interested in the debate.

I do not think that anyone will be surprised if I say—without detracting from the other debates—that it is this debate which will get most attention tomorrow and in the days ahead. The depth of feeling behind much of what has been said in this debate demonstrates again the very real appreciation of the country as a whole for the work that the Services do. That appreciation is supremely well deserved and is fully shared by the Government.

This is a point that it is all too easy for Ministers to make. Ministers frequently make it, but it nevertheless needs to be made again. I am referring to the professionalism of our Armed Forces and to their skill and devotion to duty, which they have demonstrated over recent months not only in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland but also during the firemen's strike.

I, along with my fellow Service Ministers, visited Service units throughout the country during the course of the year. We were impressed again and again—as always—when we visited the Service units. No matter the task or the situation, they always seem to come through with a first-rate job. More recently the Services were involved in the blizzard emergency in the South-West—as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) will know—as well as in Scotland. My only regret with regard to the emergency in the South-West was that the Navy's contribution seemed to escape the attention of some people.

Service men will understand that at this stage—with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body report and the Government's considerations on it yet to come—I cannot make a detailed prediction about the Services 1978 pay award. The increase may have to be phased to accord with pay policy, but I can and do assure the Services, as well as the House, that comparability on pay will be restored just as soon as circumstances permit.