SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSIONS

HC Deb 20 June 1947 vol 438 cc2441-50

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Michael Stewart.]

3.57 p.m.

Colonel Wigg (Dudley)

I am fortunate in having this opportunity of raising the question of the grant of special campaign pensions. These pensions do not involve vast sums of money nor very great numbers of men. To be eligible for a special campaign pension a man must have attained the age of 65, he must have received a war medal for service rendered before 1st October, 1931. Moreover, his weekly income, apart from his Army pension, must not exceed 19s. The conditions attaching to this pension have always borne very hardly on the recipient. If his wife goes out to work, or he himself earns a very few shillings a week, the pensioner will very soon find himself exceeding the income limit, and although he might have waited for a considerable number of years for the pension, it would be taken from him.

The raising of the old age pension has more or less cancelled out the grant of this pension, and I want to place before the House the example of a constituent of mine, Mr. Eli Bennett, who is now 76 years of age. He joined the Worcestershire Regiment in 1892, subsequently saw service in India in the Durham Light Infantry, went to South Africa, where he served in the South African War, and was then transferred to the Army Reserve. He rejoined the Colours in 1914, saw service in France, and was invalided out in 1917, with a pension of 21s. a week. Later, when he recovered his health, the pension was reduced to 4s. 8d. a week. At the age of 65 he received a special campaign pension of 10s. a week, but, of course, in accordance with the conditions of the grant of that pension, he had to surrender his Regular Army pension of 4s. 8d. His total income before the raising of the old age pension was 10s. a week old age pension, 15s. 6d. supplementary pension, and 10s. special campaign pension, making a total of 35s. 6d. His old age pension was increased to 26s. a week and forthwith the Army cancelled his special campaign pension, his supplementary pension was withdrawn, and, as a result of the increase in his old age pension—

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." [Mr. Michael Stewart.]

Colonel Wigg

The result of the increase in the old age pension of this old soldier is, that his income has been reduced from 35s. 6d. a week to 30s. 8d. I do not put the blame for that upon the Army. The nigger in the wood pile, as usual in these matters, is to be found in the Treasury. It is to the nation's credit that we have demanded and succeeded in obtaining for the veterans of the 1914–18 war and of this war grants of pensions which are satisfactorily, intelligently and humanely administered, and I plead for similar treatment for the veterans of wars long ago.

In addition to the case I have mentioned I have found in my constituency three similar examples of the working of the conditions attached to the grant of special campaign pensions. In each sions that these men enlisted in the last century. All of them saw service in the South African war and served in the 1914–1918 war, and all have been treated in the same way. While public opinion has demanded decent treatment for the veterans of the two great wars because they concern large numbers of men, public opinion has not been sufficiently educated to the existence of this problem concerning the veterans of the South African war and previous wars, and it is for that reason that I trouble the House this afternoon. I think I have a right to an assurance from the Minister that he will look very carefully into the case of Mr. Eli Bennett and ensure that he does not suffer an "Irishman's rise" as a result of the increase in his old age pension. I think it is a little short of a scandal that the matter should have worked out in this way.

I appreciate that regulations are laid down in the Royal Warrant and that they must be applied, but the numbers of men concerned are small and the amount of money very little. The total number of pensioners involved in the whole country is only 1,528, and the total saving to the National Exchequer is £38,000 a year. Just think what it must mean in terms of human misery, and what that sum of £38,000 would bring in the way of comfort to old soldiers in the evening of their lives. There are issues involved over and above that of money. These men in their day have given of their best in the service of their country, and now they are lonely often as the result of the conditions of service. They find themselves with not such a wide circle of friends as they would have had if they had always lived in the community. Therefore, they are a little lonely and conscious of the lack of comrades. They find that in the evening of their lives they are treated not even as fairly and justly as they would have been treated had they not given service in the Army. Therefore, I hope the Minister will agree to have another look at these cases.

I want to refer to another aspect of these special campaign pensions and their administration by the Army. I have already said that I entirely agree that while one can hurl bricks at the Army, they in turn can hurl the bricks into the windows of the Treasury, which is where they belong. I wish to refer to the way in which the pensions are administered by the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. I have said on previous occasions that there is little fault to find with the administration of the Ministry of Pensions, but there is a great deal of fault to find with the lack of humanity and intelligence in the administration of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, particularly when it is compared with the Ministry of Pensions administration. We are paying far too great a price for maintaining this anachronistic organisation, which had its origin three hundred years ago. The whole thing ought to be scrapped, and Army pensions should be administered as intelligently, fairly and humanely as are pensions by the Ministry of Pensions.

I should have thought that it is not merely a question which affects the men concerned. The Army is in need of recruits. I have never been in favour of attempting to obtain recruits by the promise of bedside lamps tomorrow. What is wanted is not bedside lamps tomorrow, but "jam" today. One of the ways of building up the prestige of the Army is not always concerned for those who are to serve tomorrow and the day after, but by doing something for those who have already given their services, and who are, in fact, the best recruiting sergeants we could get. These old soldiers are men, who are listened to because of their training and experience, and are very often the men to whom a young man will turn when seeking advice.

I should have thought that the Army, in its own interest, should have gone out of its way to ensure that they had a square deal. The numbers concerned are small. In my constituency I have found only four cases. I am quite sure that in every constituency in the country there are at least four cases, very often more, but there are not enough for a great public clamour to have emerged. The Minister should realise that because a clamour has not arisen it does not mean that there is not a substantial injustice being done to these men. Therefore, I trust that he will not only look at the case I have mentioned, but do what he can for the whole of this very deserving class of men.

4.7 p.m.

Brigadier Low (Blackpool, North)

I must apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) for not having been here when he began his very sincere plea on behalf of those who were awarded this special campaign pension, and who now find that that pension has either been reduced or cancelled altogether. I am in agreement with him, as I so often find myself in agreement with him about Army matters, that the door through which the bricks should properly be hurled on this occasion is not the one leading to the War Office, but the door on the other side of the road which leads to the Treasury. I also believe that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will probably plead the case far more successfully than any private Member of the House. I ask him to give us some assurance that he will plead the case of these men very strongly, or that he has already successfully done so.

I have taken up a case on behalf of a constituent of mine who found, in the closing years of a long life of service to the country, that a special campaign pension of 10s. which had been awarded was suddenly reduced to 5s. because he had been given an increased old age pension. It seems to me that the reputation of the Government, and particularly the reputa- tion of the War Office, which we all, quite apart from our party prejudices, wish to stand high in this country, is continually being brought down when we find the Treasury taking away with one hand what it is giving with the other. I should have thought that there was a strong case for giving a preference to men such as these, who had earned, by reason of previous service in their life, a special mark from the Government, whether in a form such as this special campaign pension, or some other. Why is it necessary, when the old age pension is increased, to reduce this special campaign pension? I would like to tell the hon. Gentleman that if he were sitting on this side of the House or on the benches behind where he sits at present, he would sympathise with our point of view. It is no use his saying that this is what the Regulation says. The reason he is sitting on the Front Bench is so that he can alter Regulations if he thinks fit. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley put the case quite strongly. I have only added these extra remarks from my own point of view, but I know that there is a number of persons affected in this way. I have taken up a case unsuccessfully and I find that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has also been unsuccessful. However, we have not lost hope yet, and I hope the Minister will give us some further help.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Stubbs (Cambridgeshire)

I am at a loss to understand how it comes about that this should happen. What connection is there between special campaign pensions and old age pensions? Is the reason for this that a soldier who has fought for his country cannot draw money from two Departments at one and the same time? There must be a real answer to this. It causes suffering to these old pensioners who have fought for us and who were given a campaign pension for services rendered. It appears that they are drawing something which is pulled back as though it were on a piece of elastic. I have had cases in my constituency. The other week I had a similar case to the one quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg). This is not right or just. It is nothing short of a national scandal that these old pensioners who have fought the nation's battles, and have been given a Service pension, should lose that pension because the old age pension is improved. The thing is unjust, and should be removed at the earliest possible moment.

4.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman)

On one thing I find myself in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low), and it is that the reason I and my hon. and right hon. Friends are sitting on these benches is in order that we may change so many of the Regulations which were passed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, I think that before being asked to do so in a purely doctrinaire spirit, we should be required to establish some ground or case for making a change. I would like to express the gratitude which I feel personally, and which I think the House will feel too, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) for the extremely moderate way in which he has raised what is a matter touching all our sentiments. It is always an unpleasant thing to have to announce to this House, or to justify in this House, what on the face of it appears to be a harsh decision.

First, I would like to dispose very briefly of the case, which my hon. and gallant Friend raised in detail, of Mr. Eli Bennett. He has surprised me this afternoon by telling the House that Mr. Bennett's income has decreased as a result of these changes. I am surprised to hear that, because it is not in accordance with the facts as I understood them. It may indeed be true, and it is our intention, as shall show in a few minutes, that that should not occur in any case. Therefore, I give an undertaking to my hon. and gallant Friend that I will look into this case again and satisfy myself on what are the true facts. It is not our intention, as I will explain, that there should be a drop in income in any of these cases.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) used a phrase which I think explains some of the misunderstanding which has arisen about these pensions. He referred to the special campaign pension for services rendered. The whole point of the difficulty with which we are confronted is that this pension is not, and never has been, a pension for services rendered. It is an archaic survival from the time when there was no form of social security in this country, and when the War Office was empowered to pay a miserable pittance to destitute old soldiers who had no other appreciable source of income, and who were not eligible for any appreciable service pension or old age pension other than the 10s. a week.

The situation that we are now facing is that, in the course of time, the old age pension has risen successively until it now stands at 26s. a week. The special campaign pension, which dates from long before the South African War, was abolished in the cuts of 1931, except for those who had already qualified for pensions in campaigns prior to that date. It has always been subject to a means test, and its object has been to bring the income of the destitute soldier up to the level of about 24s. a week. The only exception to that has been in the case of the recent supplementary old age pension, which has not been counted. With that exception, the object, as I have said, has been to bring the income up to 24s. a week. It is a sorry reflection on the social security which we had in this country in the past that that was considered necessary.

The Royal Warrant and the conditions under which the Special Campaign Pension may be granted, lays down a means test and the amounts which may be paid for varying incomes. Now we find ourselves in the position where the old age pension has been raised to a higher figure than the maximum figure to which the special campaign pension may be brought. The old age pension is 26s. a week, which technically raises the level above that at which we can pay this special campaign pension. What are we to do? Does my hon. and gallant Friend wish us to promulgate a new Royal Warrant instituting a new special campaign pension with a higher means test? If so, it is a proposition which we cannot sustain. I do not want to give the House the impression that I am unsympathetic, or harsh about the matter, but what of the other people in the community? Are we, in fact, saying that the old age pension of 26s. a week is not high enough? Perhaps we are. If so, that is the responsibility of this House, and one which we all have to face together.

Concerned though I am for the well being of people who, at any time, have served in the Army, I cannot take the view that on the morrow of passing this new social security scheme we should immedi- ately proceed to add to it a needs pension payable only on a means test, which admits straight away that the old age, pension is not sufficient. Perhaps it is not sufficient. If so, then it is the responsibility of this House to see that it is raised all round.

Brigadier Low

Would not the hon. Gentleman consider that there would be a good case for increasing the means test limit of the special campaign pension to such a sum as now represents what was 24s. a week prior to the 1914g18 war? Will he consider that, or something like it, bearing in mind the report on Members pensions which has just been issued, which suggests that the means test for those pensions should be raised from £200 to £300?

Mr. Freeman

No, Sir. I appreciate what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind—we all do—but how can the House wish me to accept a proposition that, after having laid down a certain standard of living for the old people of this country, I should take one very small group, who, after all, are no different from everybody else, and say that they should qualify for a higher rate of pension? To do that would be to admit that the existing rate is not sufficient.

Colonel Wigg

Surely, my hon. Friend realises, of course, that there is a considerable number of men drawing the special campaign pensions who get them because the ordinary service pensions are so low? Whilst I fully understand the reasons which make him advance the arguments he has, he must remember that Mr. Eli Bennett was getting a Service pension of 4s. 8d. a week. The real charge against the Treasury is that they allow this man, who has given service in three wars, to continue still with 4s. 8d. a week and do not reassess that amount. If my hon. Friend wants to advance the argument he has he must make the other point, too.

Mr. Freeman

I think there is this substance in that point, namely, if we take the view—that we are entitled to take—that the old age pension is not high enough, then it is incumbent on this House to say so, and equally if we take the view that the Service pensions are not high enough, then it is equally the responsibility of this House to say so. But the point that I am making is that it would be absurd and illogical to perpetuate this system of the means test pension, the whole existence of which harks back to the age of the Poor Law. I do want to emphasise that those people who are drawing those pensions are not necessarily the recipients of Service pensions; they are not necessarily recipients of disability pensions. They may be, and, if so, adjustments are made in their pensions. But they are not people, who by their long service in the Army, have qualified for what may be called a professional pension. They are people—worthy and admirable, and having no doubt, given good service to the community, as so many other citizens have—but they are people precisely like other citizens in receipt of old age pensions. It is on that ground that I must resist this particular method of seeking to improve their status.

What the Government have done is to say that the new old age pension must be taken into account in assessing the requirements for this—what I should like to call "destitution dole." That does, in the majority of cases, I admit freely, mean that the special campaign pension disappears—as, indeed, it is bound to do in the march of progress in the field of social security. But there are cases—not an inconsiderable number of cases—where, for some reason or other, it could happen that the pensioner concerned would be worse off than he was before. My hon. and gallant Friend suggests that the case of Eli Bennett is one of those. I am not sure. But in any case, there are such cases, and we have taken the decision that the pensioner should not be worse off; and we have taken to ourselves the power to issue a small continuing special campaign pension where those particular circumstances arise, in order that the change over shall not leave the pensioner worse off than he was before. Also, any disability pension or service pension which he may have had to give up in the past in order to draw his special campaign pension will, of course, be restored to him when the special campaign pension disappears.

I do think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Black- pool and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley both have the very engaging habit, when trying to argue a case, of seeking to drive a wedge between Ministers on the Front Bench. They like to get up and say, "Now, come on, give us a decent reply, because we know it is not your fault, and that it is all the fault of somebody else." Well, really, we may have our faults, but we are not quite as simple as that, or we should not be sitting here.

Brigadier Low

Will the hon. Gentleman then explain to the House why it was that he and other Service Ministers were unable to be present on the Front Bench the other night when we were discussing whether or not Territorial bounties and other bounties should be tax free?

Mr. Freeman

We have many problems on our hands at the moment, and it is conceivable that my colleagues, as was the case with myself, were engaged elsewhere on that occasion. I would not seek to beg the question, one way or the other, whether or not we sustain the old people of the country at a high enough standard. That is a matter for which this House as a whole must take responsibility. There is no justice for perpetuating these sorts of pensions, which date from the past and are quite inappropriate to modern conditions. The House should be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley for having raised this subject. There is, perhaps, a tendency at this moment to think that because we have passed our great National Insurance Measure, it is the end of the story, that social security is now complete, and we can rest assured. It will be a sorry day if this House adopts the attitude of Pontius Pilate, and washes its hands of these cases of hardship which undoubtedly exist. If this Debate has done nothing else, it has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that there are still cases of hardship to which we must address ourselves

Question put, and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Four o'Clock.