§ 3.42 p.m.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)My Lords, with the leave of the 1633 House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about the pay of the Armed Services.
"The 7th Report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body is published today and copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are most grateful to the Review Body for all its work in producing this report.
"The Review Body has concluded that the pay of the Armed Forces has fallen seriously behind in the period since April 1975 and the Report states that increases in pay of between 19 per cent. and 38 per cent.—averaging 32 per cent. —are now required to restore the full military salary. It recommends that the full military salary should be restored at the earliest possible date, but it recognises the Government's expectation that increases which exceed the guidelines would need to be staged. It has recommended that this staging should be completed not later than 1st April 1980.
"The Government accept the Review Body's recommendations on the levels of the military salary. These will be fully implemented to the current levels for 1st April 1980 in two approximately equal stages after this year and, as the Review Body recommends, the Government give a firm commitment to that effect.
"In considering the levels of the military salary, the Review Body has had regard to the element which recognises the balance of disadvantage of Service life by comparison with civil life, known in the Services as the X Factor '; it has also taken into account allowances and charges.
"The Government have reached conclusions on these various elements in the light of the Review Body's conclusions and the following arrangements will apply for the year from 1st April 1978. There will be an increase of 10 per cent. in the military salary together with an increase in the X factor within the amount recommended by the Review Body, which 1634 will add 3 per cent. in total. The extent to which these percentages will be implemented will vary from rank to rank as differentials are restored. In addition, the rate of Northern Ireland pay will be doubled to £1 per day. There will he certain changes in allowances and a standstill in charges for accommodation pending a further examination by the Review Body. These together will add a further 1 per cent. to the net bill.
"My right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is arranging for a summary of the new pay scales to be placed in the Vote Office.
"These arrangements now secure for the Armed Forces a firm assurance about their future conditions of service and will meet, 1 believe, the view expressed by the Review Body that their particular problems should be recognised.
"The men and women who serve in the Forces have many diverse and difficult roles, and they have undertaken a number of additional tasks, some of them very dangerous as in Northern Ireland. The country is grateful to them and I should like to pay tribute once again to the professionalism and dedication with which they carry out their many responsibilities."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ 3.47 p.m.
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, good manners and the customs of this House compel me to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I think that the only other kind thing that I can say is that the Statement at least fulfils one promise made during the wind-up of our debate on Thursday last.
In view—and I am sorry to say this—of the grave discourtesy to this House of arranging a defence debate when this Statement was clearly imminent within days, I hope that the Leader of the House will also feel able to undertake to fulfil an implied promise made by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, in the wind-up last Thursday when he said: 1635
The convention is, as far as I know it, that the Commons first of all debate the White Paper and, about a week later, we do the same". —[Official Report, 20/4/78; col. 1420.)I think that that is what the House would expect.I can certainly welcome one statement which I found in the five-minute perusal that I made of the White Paper, because the Review Body says on page 31:
In our view it is essential and equitable to ensure that Servicemen are no less favourably treated in the current cycle of pay restraint measures than other members of the community.".As for the Statement itself, welcome though some of the crumbs are, I must ask the Government: do they seriously imagine that the promise of jam tomorrow will do anything to staunch the flow of personnel from the Forces? On Thursday last, I said that death by arterial bleeding is infinitely faster than death by starvation, and more irreversible. I should like to repeat that again today. The Government say that payments will be staged. I think that perhaps "stage-managed" would be a better expression to use about them. Will not this treatment call into question and undermine the vital confidence of the Forces in the value of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body itself?—indeed, it is clearly worried about this as can be seen from the opening paragraph of the White Paper.It is all very well for the Government to mouth platitudes about recognising particular problems and expressing the country's gratitude, but that does not pay the bills. I can only say that the Statement leaves us, on this side of the House, with a profound sense of alarm and despondency, allied to a feeling of shame that Parliament is failing those from whom it demands both devotion and trust.
§ Lord MACKIE of BENSHIEMy Lords, there are one or two significant aspects to the Statement. It is rather unfortunate that the Statement says that between April 1975 and the present day the Forces have averaged 32 per cent. lag behind average pay in civilian life and that this is not to be corrected until 1980. I am still very doubtful whether 14 per cent. now will stem the disastrous flow of very skilled people from the Services. As I said in the debate last week, the rise in the cost of the various outgoings of 1636 the Forces, particularly rents, has been disastrous. We welcome the fact that the Statement said that, at any rate for now, the cost of accommodation is to be frozen; I have not seen the White Paper, but I should have thought that it needed to be reduced.
I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether any effort is to be made to retain in the special categories the highly special skills which many members of the Forces have and which are in great demand outside the Forces. Unless that is done, the drain of these essential middle-rank people may well continue and get worse. It also appears to me that there should be some back-dating, although I see no mention of this in the Statement. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House can tell us whether that is so.
Lastly, we have had this enormously serious drain from the Services. There has been a lag of 32 per cent. behind average salaries, and we are in a position which the Government recognise as serious. I do not think that any steps can be taken to stop this unless the Government agree to index Forces pay so that this does not happen again. Certainly, the highly-skilled people who are now leaving all three Services will not stay unless some definite promise is given that this situation will not occur again in five or 10 years' time, when it will be too late for them to start a new career.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I welcome the constructive approach of the Liberal Party. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to flying pay in last week's debate; yes, there will be a 50 per cent. increase in that. However, before noble Lords criticise I ask them carefully to read the White Paper. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, that no discourtesy was intended when we arranged the debate we had last week; after all, we had discussions through the usual channels. I give him my personal assurance on that. There was no discourtesy.
I thought that we had a good debate. In fact, I did not think that we would be in a position to make a Statement today, but we have rushed it through. I am prepared to consider a debate, but that will have to be discussed through the 1637 usual channels. I know that my noble friend mentioned this in his winding up speech. I do not accept that we are mouthing platitudes. These are not "crumbs", as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, said. After all, we must bear pay guidelines in mind.
This is a considerable increase. I have before me a list of what it means to officers and to the rank and file; considerable increases are involved. I do not think that we should spread despondency. Noble Lords opposite are very responsible on these matters, and I understand that they appreciate the importance of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, as I do. We, too, care. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will look carefully at the White Paper before they make extravagant criticisms.
§ The Earl of ONSLOWMy Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peart could do some elementary sums for me; I am not very good at them. The White Paper says that the differential in living standards was between 19 per cent. and 38 per cent. between now and 1975. It was widely leaked that there would he a 14 per cent. rise. In fact, it seems to be a 13 per cent. rise. However, am I right in understanding that that 19 per cent. to 38 per cent. differential will be made up between now and 1980? That would put a further large amount on to the Estimates.
Will that also take into account projected inflation of, say, 15 per cent. over the next two years? Presumably, that is 15 per cent. plus 6 per cent. of the 19 per cent., which is 21 per cent., or 22 per cent. plus 15 per cent. of 38 per cent. I am doing mathematics on my feet and I quite concede that it is difficult and that I may get the sums wrong. I am simply trying to underline the desperate falling away that has happened in Service pay. Will the noble Lord give a copper-bottomed guarantee that this will be rectified by 1980?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, in my opening remarks I said that increases in pay of between 19 per cent. and 38 per cent. and averaging 32 per cent. were now required to restore the full military salary. It is recommended that it should be restored at the earliest possible date. However, the Review Body recognises that the Government have to bear in mind increases which exceed the guidelines. Therefore, 1638 this would have to be staged. The Review Body has recommended that this staging should be completed not later than 1st April 1980. I give that assurance.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although the guidelines relating to civilian pay have been generally accepted, differentials have applied to a large number of civilian workers, for example, the miners? They can work overtime, for which they receive increased remuneration; productivity applies, particularly in the case of the miners, as a result of which they receive a very substantial increase in their remuneration. That does not apply to the men in the Forces. They receive nothing extra for overtime, special duties or anything of that sort.
I should like to ask this question. After my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had made his Statement in another place, was there any demand for a debate? Secondly, in the circumstances and whether or not there was a demand for a debate in another place, can we have a debate in this House? In that way, our views can be expressed, not so much on the Government's decision on the recommendations of the Armed Forces Review Body, but on the implication of the decision and on whether we can afford to have reduced Forces, because there may be resignations. Incidentally, it would be of great benefit if my noble friend could deal with the rumours about resignations. Do those rumours contain an element of truth? Can we have the facts?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, if my noble friend Lord Shinwell is talking about resignations of those who are involved —the leaders in the Army—I would say that they are just rumours. I have answered the question of a debate. If there is a wish to have another defence debate, certainly I should not resist it because the White Paper is important. But I say to my noble friend that there has been an increase of 10 per cent. in the military salary, together with an increase in the X factor within the amount recommended by the Review Body which will add another three per cent. in total.
The extent to which these percentages \Nal be implemented will vary from rank to rank. In addition, the rate of Northern 1639 Ireland pay will be doubled to £1 per day. There will be certain changes in allowances, and a standstill in charges for accommodation pending a further examination by the Review Body. These together will add an even further 1 per cent., so it is wrong to assume that nothing has been given. cannot understand such language.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord really answered the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Onslow. As I understood it the point was this. Over the time to 1980 there is to be this increase of 32 per cent. In the meantime the probability is that other earnings in other spheres will be rising. Will the corresponding figure for those rises be added to the 32 per cent. by 1980? I think that is the point.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I have assumed that it will go up in stages. However, if there is any doubt about this I shall certainly look at it carefully, but that is my impression and that is the advice I have been given. I am certain that there should be no worry on this at all.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, can the noble Lord say more about the standstill on charges to which he referred? As comparability, as I understand it, is not to be restored until 1st April 1980, it would seem reasonable to ask that he should give an assurance that the standstill in charges will also last to that date. He referred to a standstill on accommodation charges: does that standstill apply to other charges?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, no it does not. It is a separate item. Other charges I shall look at. I do not know the answer. I have only just recently seen the detailed Statement as such, but I shall look at this and answer the noble Lord.
§ Viscount BROOKEBOROUGHMy Lords, may I ask whether this increase—and I do not think that it is a very great increase—applies to the largest regiment in the British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment? Does not this Statement slightly question the independence of the Review Body, which I feel should have 1640 recommended to the Government that parity should have been restored, and it then should have been the total responsibility of the Government to take into consideration the recommendations and the question of the national pay policy? Will they look at this question of the independence of the Review Body?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I cannot say that there has been any interference with the independence of the Review Body. On Ulster, of course it applies to all of the defence forces.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, may I, in a slightly different way, press the noble Lord about one aspect of what my noble friend Lord Onslow asked him? I think it is a different point from that put by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. The 32 per cent. is going to be restored, so we hear, by an early date in 1980. However in the meantime, assuming Government plans go right, inflation itself is running, so far as I know, at 71- per cent., even if their plans are fulfilled. That means that 15 per cent. will be taken off the value of the concessions by 1980, so far as I can see. How do the Government intend to recoup that additional 15 per cent.?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I cannot give a firm assurance on that. It will have to take note of this, and this is something which the Review Body, which will still be sitting, will have to consider. No doubt this will be raised. These are the figures which have been given for this period, the targets.
The Earl of SELKIRKMy Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the Review Body will resume its annual reporting, instead of doing so more spasmodically?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I think that that should be the situation, but that is my personal view. I think that the period is too long in view of changes which have taken place. This is a matter which I think should be considered.
§ Lord LLOYD of KILGERRANMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question regarding the cost of accommodation? I ask this question in my capacity as Honorary 1641 Treasurer of the all-Party Group on Defence of this House. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to take steps to assure members of the Forces not only that the costs of accommodation will be frozen but that they will be reduced? Is the noble Lord aware that when I was visiting a defence establishment recently, the Commandant entertained me in a house and pointed out to me that the Commandant's house was empty because he could not afford the increased charges in relation to the rent and ancillary matters? May I ask the noble Lord to consider carefully reducing the cost of accommodation to members of the Armed Forces in this country?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, that is another question. The Government policy is to freeze, and I think that that is right in the circumstances, but I am prepared to ask my colleagues to look at it.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, I believe that in accordance with the Rules of the House I am not entitled to make a speech but merely to ask a question, and so 1 do that feelingly, as one who was soldiering in 1914 for a shilling a day and only got five shillings a day as a company sergeant major a few years later. Can my noble friend tell us how much is the increase that a private infantry soldier will get, and what will be his pay and allowances after that increase has been granted? Furthermore, can he tell us what the cost this year will be and what the cost next year will be to the national budget? Finally, why cannot we have the whole two instalments phased into one and paid this year?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I think for guidelines reasons, and my noble friend knows that. I have figures here which deal with the impact on the ordinary private soldier. It varies from that. There is a series of bands, as my noble friend understands. Private soldiers on Bands 1 to 3 will get an 11.6 per cent. to 14.3 per cent. increase, which will mean from £5.08 to £8.47. That is a considerable increase.
§ The Earl of AVONMy Lords, could I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House who is responsible for the lack of the pay going up over the last two to three years? is it the Army Pay Review 1642 Board?—in which case perhaps it ought to be reviewed itself. Secondly, could I ask the noble Lord who is actually responsible for the quality and quantity of the Armed Services? Is it the Army Pay Review Board or is it the Government? I believe that the Government ought to look at the Army Pay Review Board findings much more carefully than they do, in order to see that the quality and quantity of our Armed Services is maintained.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, irrespective of the status of the Review Board, the responsibility must be the Government's. If there are to be any changes, then this should be addressed to the Government, and no doubt the noble Lord will pursue this.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, I understand that it is the Government's responsibility. I may have misheard the noble Lord, but I gathered that he could not answer my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter because he said that he had only just had the information. Has not this been in front of the Cabinet? Is not the noble Lord a member of the Cabinet? If this is not a Cabinet matter, then it ought to be. Did the noble Lord discuss it in Cabinet so that he knew what it was that he was giving in the Statement?
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, the noble Lord knows that my responsibility is for many matters. Naturally I do not know every item of detail in my head. I have tried, as always, to speak in defence debates in this House because I, like many noble Lords opposite, believe that we should have adequate defence forces. I am a strong Army man myself. I was in the Army, like many noble Lords, so I do not want the noble Lord to be offensive, because he is such an agreeable chap.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be aware that it is almost impossible for anybody like myself to make a comment now on what has been done according to the Statement which the noble Lord has given. Is he aware that what worries a great many people is the effort that has had to be made to get the Services at any rate 1643 some improvement in their pay and conditions? All I would ask is for us to have a little time to consider this properly. I was glad to note that we should have another defence debate. Will the noble Lord consider with the Cabinet, before a further debate takes place, whether we shall then be able to have adequate treatment on the points of view that are put forward by people who want to see the Services always properly and adequately treated, so that we never have to have this terrible pressure to get this Government to do something!
§ Lord PEARTThe last remarks of the noble Baroness were uncalled for, my Lords. This is a positive Statement and I am as anxious as she is to see that our Servicemen are adequately paid.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will listen to my reply; we have been discussing this matter for over half an hour. I have given an assurance that I will look at the possibility of having a debate on Army pay or defence, if the House so wishes—
§ Lord PEART— and we will meet through the usual channels. I suggest we now proceed to other business.