HC Deb 12 February 2001 vol 363 cc14-6
11. Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead)

What steps he is taking to improve pay and conditions of Royal Navy personnel. [148228]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar)

The terms and conditions of naval service personnel are subjected to regular review to ensure their currency and fairness. The rates of pay and associated allowances of naval service personnel are reviewed annually by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which bases its recommendations on broad comparability with similarly weighted civilian jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Friday, the review body's recommendations for the 2001 pay award have been accepted in full by the Government and will be implemented from 1 April. The settlement is good for all the armed forces and is fully deserved, given the excellent job that they do.

Mr. McWalter

Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in the armed forces welcome the improvements that he describes? However, vessels such as HMS Ocean were not so much lean-manned ships as scandalously undermanned, as part of the previous Government's arrangements? Will he ensure that staffing levels on such ships are high enough to keep them clean, so that they can be a source of pride to the Royal Navy?

Mr. Spellar

I assure my hon. Friend that the Navy's leadership is ensuring that our ships are properly and adequately manned. It is also undertaking effective recruiting, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, and the Royal Air Force and the Navy are moving towards achieving the required staffing balance.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

Does the Minister agree that the most unfair aspect of pay and pensions is the so-called pensions trough, whereby some people who retired at a time of pay restraint are £1,000 or more a year worse off than people who may have retired only a few days later? Does he also agree that if those pensions were part of a private scheme, the trustees would have tried to address the problem? Will he face up to the representations made to him by the Officers Pensions Society and others to deal with that injustice?

Mr. Spellar

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the issue is difficult and has been faced by Governments of both parties for many years. It affects not only the armed forces pension scheme, but a considerable number of public sector schemes as well. It is a little disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to imply that there may be a separation between the armed forces scheme and the schemes for the rest of the public sector. As I said, all Governments have faced that difficulty, and in 18 years, the previous Government did nothing about it.

Ms Claire Ward (Watford)

Is my hon. Friend aware that armed forces personnel serving abroad receive less pay than they do when they are based in barracks here? Will he give a commitment to consider that issue?

Mr. Spellar

My hon. Friend is probably referring to overseas allowances for personnel in Germany and the Balkans. That is a difficult matter, which raises taxation issues. The previous Administration also faced those problems—but I am not trying to place the responsibility on them. Individuals who serve in Germany and the Balkans may not be better off in their overall service, because they will be affected by a different tax regime. However, we recognise the problems caused by separation; that is why we introduced enhanced separation allowances.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

Does the Minister realise that the shortfall of naval pilots in joint force Harrier is not just a question of money? Does he understand that although RAF Cottesmore is an agreeable location—it is a former bomber base in good hunting country—it is not exactly the same as a naval air station where there is salt in the air, and the traditions, atmosphere and ethos encourage Fleet Air Arm pilots, like other naval personnel, to stay and to feel at home?

Mr. Spellar

I have been to Yeovilton and I did not notice too much salt flying across from the waves on the beach. Like many other countries, we face considerable pressures in recruiting naval air personnel and RAF pilots, because of the expansion of the civil airline industry. I wish only that the industry paid for all its own training, instead of constantly poaching personnel from the air force. We are looking to improve and increase output from the training system, but that will take time. That is why we have, as the hon. Gentleman will know, introduced measures to encourage retention, so as to sustain our operational effectiveness. The Navy and the RAF are hopeful and optimistic that those will have a significant positive effect.

Caroline Flint (Don Valley)

My hon. Friend will be aware that for some years I have been campaigning to have removed the arcane old-fashioned regulations that affect the pay of Navy, Army and RAF personnel. Those regulations prevent the operation of deduction of earnings orders that the Child Support Agency has imposed on some personnel, and so help them to avoid their responsibilities. When will the Minister do something about that? The new CSA arrangements will do nothing to deal with the backlog of cases affected by those regulations, and that is a crying shame.

Mr. Spellar

I know that my hon. Friend has met the Under-Secretary of State to discuss the matter. My recollection from my days as Under-Secretary is that the percentage that can be deducted from service pay is greater than the CSA levels that are to be introduced. I admit that problems arise because of arrears, which are often due to CSA bureaucracy. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is considering the matter.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)

I wonder whether the Government have any conception of the consternation and chaos produced throughout the armed forces by their ill-conceived and mishandled pay proposals for 2000. What possible sense or justice is there in paying a cook more than a bomb disposal expert with the same rank and seniority? I spent Thursday with an all-party group on one of the Royal Navy's largest ships. The whole complement was in a state of cold fury about the proposals. Is it surprising that with such a ham-fisted Government, morale and retention in all the services are collapsing—contrary to the complacent impression given by Ministers earlier in response to my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)?

Mr. Spellar

Everyone recognises that changed pay systems always create some difficulties, especially in their early stages. Policies are designed to be more flexible so that they can be adapted to changing circumstances. Everyone will have the opportunity to increase his earnings within his rank, in recognition of experience and qualifications. The second major change is a more targeted approach, which will allow us to address accurately particular areas of need. Allowances will be focused more efficiently on recruitment and retention. It is a strategy for retaining the best alongside the strategy for change. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) indicates some dissent. That is slightly surprising, as that was said at the introduction of the policy in February 1997, in the foreword signed by the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).