STATE PENSIONS. (Hansard, 20 February 1940)

Mr. J. J. Davidson
I desire to raise a point of which I gave notice, in regard to the matter on which I put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13th February. I asked the right hon. Gentleman: what steps he is taking, in view of the call for national economy, to investigate the whole position regarding pensions payable to ex-members of the judiciary, ex-Prime Ministers, and the pension payable to the present Lord Nelson? To the great amazement of many Members of the House, and to the amazement of people in the country, and if I may judge by the letters I have received from England, Scotland and Wales, and especially in view of the present national crisis, the right hon. Gentleman replied: I see no reason for such investigation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1940; col. 578, Vol. 357.] When I asked the Question I had in mind the position that had been placed forward time and time again by Government spokesmen since the beginning of the war. I have had letters from men who have done active service, been maimed, or lost sons or good friends in the service of this country, and whose meagre pensions die with them. The Press that this Question has received has surprised many of my hon. Friends. Generally speaking, the Press does not give true statements to the public, but on this occasion it is to be complimented for the way in which it has brought the matter in front of the public of this country.
The Government have declared emphatically, in speech after speech, that, in this crisis, we are faced with one of the strongest enemies, financially and materially, that we have ever faced, and that all must share in the burdens of the war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone as far as to say that every fnrthing—not every £ or every £5, but. 1311 every farthing—in the finances of the country must be usefully employed to prosecute the war successfully. He has warned us that if we did not effectively utilise every farthing of the nation's financial resources, we might lose the war, with woeful results. I am with the Government in that declaration, but I shall be interested to hear from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how he justifies the Chancellor's statement that he sees no reason for an investigation into the huge pensions of from £1,000 to £5,000 a year that are payable to men who were handsomely rewarded by the country with salaries of up to £10,000, in order to preserve them from corruption, by keeping them free from any worries that might be caused by lack of money.

§ Mr. Speaker
These pensions cannot be discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment, as they are a matter which would need legislation.

Mr. Davidson
I quite accept your Ruling, Sir, but I would respectfully point out that, in my Question, I referred to specific pensions, and I am merely asking the Government whether they will undertake an investigation? I would ask whether I am entitled to proceed on these lines?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member is debating a point that is out of order. All questions with regard to these pensions are already known. The pensions are paid under Statute.

§ Mr. Silverman
Would it be out of order, on an Adjournment Debate, to suggest to the Government that they make out in some compendious form, and make available to hon. Members, the amounts that are being paid in respect of pensions of this kind, so that we might have them before us when discussing other matters germane to them?

§ Mr. Speaker
The particulars are already there. The hon. Member can find details of all these pensions.

§ Mr. Garro Jones
May I respectfully suggest that one method by which this discussion may be brought into Order would be to suggest to the Government the only method by which, I imagine, we could deal with the problem: that is that they should approach these persons, 1312 and invite them to consider for what sum they would commute the pensions to which they are entitled?

§ Mr. Speaker
That, in itself, would require legislation, and, consequently, it would not be in Order on the Motion for the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Garro Jones
Would it require legislation for a suggestion to be made to recipients of these pensions—I am not presuming at the moment to express an opinion on the merits—that they might themselves voluntarily abandon the payment of these pensions? That would not be a matter which would require legislation. Surely it would be within the province of the Government, if they thought a proper case had been made out, to invite these gentlemen to enter into discussions?

§ Mr. Speaker
To do that, it would be necessary to repeal an Act of Parliament. That would require legislation, and, under the Rules of the House, matters which would require legislation cannot be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Garro Jones
I am sorry to have to press this point. I am sure that you would wish, if possible, Sir, to allow this Debate to proceed. It is possible for Members of Parliament in receipt of public payments to decline to receive them. Is it not possible for pensioners voluntarily to decline to receive their pensions? The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of people receiving pensions who voluntarily returned those sums to the Exchequer. Surely it would be in order for my hon. Friend to suggest to the Government that they should make an appeal to persons who are in a position to give up pensions, to make such a gesture voluntarily now? I submit that nothing could rule such a discussion out of order on a Motion for the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member must remember that these pensions are paid by Statute, and what he is asking would need legislation.

Mr. Davidson
I placed the Question on the Paper honestly and sincerely with a view to asking the Government to take some method whereby certain savings could be afforded. Surely it is within the right of a Member of this House who 1313 desires this equality of sacrifice which has been asked for to ask the Government to investigate? I am not laying it down that they should take any definite kind of action one way or the other until they have investigated the question.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not within the province of a Member to do so on a Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Davidson
I accept your Ruling, Sir, but if the rules of the House prevent 1314 me from raising this question, which is in the mind of many people an undoubted infringement of all decency and honesty and fair play, I will take an opportunity of raising it in another manner.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.