§ 10. Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the pay of Her Majesty's Forces.
§ Mr. MulleyI cannot anticipate the 1978 report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
§ Mr. GowIs the Secretary of State aware that there is a serious and growing number of junior and senior noncommissioned officers, and junior and senior officers, leaving the Armed Forces of the Crown because of the very serious way in which their pay has fallen behind that of those on comparable activities?
Will the Secretary of State direct his attention to the 50p-a-day special allowance for Northern Ireland, which has not been increased for four years, and which now has a purchasing power of only one-third of what it had when it was introduced?
§ Mr. MulleyI think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the very great importance that the Services attach to the outcome of the current pay review. I am very well aware of that. Obviously, until we have the report, which we have not yet received, I cannot anticipate what its recommendations will be. It is open to the review body to make recommendations about the Northern Ireland special allowance. Indeed, one of the first acts of the present Government was to institute that allowance. There was no allowance before 1974. Indeed, in 1974, although we were then working under the Conservative pay policy, we introduced some additional recommendations outwith the strict policy at that time, and it was under the Labour Government in 1975 that the Armed Forces had full comparability restored to them.
§ Mr. MolloyIs my right hon. Friend aware that Service pay and the conditions of all Her Majesty's Forces should have the attention of this House? That is a right and proper thing. What is disgraceful is to use Her Majesty's Forces for the sort of political gimmickry that we have witnessed here this afternoon.
§ Mr. MulleyI am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he would agree that we cannot debate a report that has not yet been finalised.
§ Mr. GoodhartWill the Secretary of State now reply to the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill)? Is it or is it not true 1310 that pilots of nuclear strike aircraft are often paid less than a bus driver in Greater London?
§ Mr. MulleyThe hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) has not put a question to me. I should have thought that he was quite capable of asking his own questions. I am not familiar with the detailed pay of all other occupations. This is the job of the pay review body, and it will publish its findings in due course.
§ Mr. Ioan EvansDoes my right hon. Friend realise that on the Labour side there is a great deal of sympathy about the pay and conditions of the lower ranks? When the whole matter is revised, will he look at the number of ranks that we have in the Services, and the differentials? Although we would have sympathy with the lower ranks getting an increase, we do not want to see increases for field marshals, in the light of present restrictions.
§ Mr. MulleyThe review body is charged with exactly that job. It reviews rates of pay, allowances and charges for all ranks within the Services up to the level of brigadier. The top ranks of the three Services are not included.
§ Mr. ChurchillWill the Secretary of State explain to privates in the British Army and to Members of the House why privates, who are receiving less than £43 per week gross, should be witnessing the payment by this Government of £43 per week, through the Manpower Services Commission, to individuals for counting street lamps in our cities?
§ Mr. MulleyI hope that I shall have quite a lot to say about the future level of remuneration of the Armed Forces when I have the review body's report. There is no point in trying to anticipate it now.
§ Mr. GowOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the plainly unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.