HC Deb 19 June 1952 vol 502 cc1704-12

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

11.23 p.m.

Major Sydney Markham (Buckingham)

I apologise for detaining the House after the extremely arduous time it has had this week. Unfortunately, unless I raise this question now I may not get a chance of raising it during the whole of the session. I want to refer to railways pensioners. I have had many letters, as I believe have other hon. Members representing constituencies with many railway workers, dealing with this question. Certainly the pages of HANSARD are studded with questions to the Minister of Transport about this issue.

In short, the issue is this. While we can see through the legislation of this country increases in pension rates for all kinds and conditions of men, we do not see any attempt to improve the pension rates of railway workers. And it is not only through legislation that pension rates have increased. Many of the great firms, from the banks to the breweries and even in the cotton industry, which at this moment is going through such a trying period, have increased pension rates to their workers. Only two days ago there was presented to this House the Pensions (Increase) Bill, which increases by £20 to £26 a year the pension rates of civil servants, policemen, firemen and so on. The case for railwaymen is as strong as, if not stronger than, the case for all those other grades.

The facts with regard to the increase in the cost of living have been so often represented in this House that I need not go into details. Since 1938 the cost of living has approximately doubled, whereas railway pensions have remained exactly the same. In the third Annual Report of the Transport Commission, which is the last important document we have available in this House regarding the activities of that Commission, new pension schemes for salaried staff were announced; but no mention was made there of improving old pensions.

This, of course, is rather a surprising omission when one considers the way in which pensions for all other types and conditions of men and women have been improved over the last 14 years. The fact is that many railwaymen are now getting pensions of less than £120 a year. Railwaymen as a class—and I do not think that this would be disputed in any part of the House—are amongst the most devoted and able working men that this country possesses. Yet at the present time very often their pensions rates are not so good as those of men whose industrial record, to say the least of it, is not very satisfactory. Surely this is a question which should be put right with the maximum possible dispatch.

Here let me confess that I realise some of the difficulties facing the Minister. He has not a free hand. It is more a function of the Transport Commission to make the decision, and I can only plead tonight that the Minister will represent faithfully the views of this House to the Transport Commission on the urgent need for a final revision of the superannuation rates of these railway pensioners.

There are other questions which seem to have disappeared entirely from the public ken since nationalisation of the railways. There was at one time under the old London and North-Western Railway a special assistance fund which, according to my information, had a large sum to its credit. That seems to have disappeared or to have vanished entirely since nationalisation. Could not that fund be utilised for improving the pensions of these railway superannuitants?

I promised that I would be very brief, and this is the extent of my case for improving railway pensions. May I say, in conclusion, that I do not think anyone in this House will deny that there is a direct moral obligation on the Transport Commission to see to it that these devoted railway workers are not left as far behind as they are at the moment because of their inability to have their rates increased. I hope that the Minister will use his influence with the Transport Commission to get this question investigated at the earliest possible moment, and I hope that a favourable reply will be forthcoming.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies (Stoke-on-Trent)

I am sure we are all very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) for making it possible for us to consider this matter tonight. As an old railwayman myself, I am sure my colleagues would endorse the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks when he says that railway workers are among the most devoted servants of this country. Unhappily, the facts as stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are correct, and they have rather a tragic effect upon the lives of a great number of able people who have served their country and this industry well.

There are over 20,000 people involved in this matter, which will no doubt cause the Minister to prick up his ears, because he can grasp something of the size of the problem from these figures. Here is a body of men who, under a system of paying something into a contributory fund out of their salaries over the years, were trying to set aside something for their declining years. They thought that the provision they were making would enable them to live with a measure of independence and to be free from any call on public funds. All of us who joined the railway companies' staffs were, in fact, required to join a superannuation fund in our early years, and for the most part our contributions were supplemented by our employers. Because there was such provision, we were exempted from paying some of the ordinary State contributions in terms of retirement pensions, unemployment benefit and the rest, which were the concern of many other workers in the country.

Railway work was considered to be a regular occupation which lent itself to such provisions for setting aside a modest sum for the men who had finished work. Unfortunately, many men find themselves, after 40 or more years' contributions in some cases, with as little as £120 a year, though some others were certainly better off than that. Because they did not contribute to any insurance fund at all, they are not entitled to any statutory benefit whatever, and so we find that men who have a meagre income of £120 a year —about 47s. or 48s. a week—are receiving less than the subsistence amount which we have recently agreed in this House in respect of National Assistance, and concerning which we were talking about 59s. per week.

Some of us think that is inadequate, and, if these people who have worked so hard to set aside some of their earnings to provide for their old age are now ex- pected to subsist on £120 a year, they have no alternative but to apply for National Assistance, and many of them are proud people who are very reluctant to do that. They sought to live their own lives with a measure of independence and to keep their troubles to themselves, but, with the decreasing value of money, they find themselves in a very difficult position as contrasted with the pre-war position, when a man, if he had a garden and received some help from his family in little ways, did not feel the draught so badly.

The railwaymen have done something amongst themselves in this connection. There is a system among the active men on the railways of contributing a little sum voluntarily each week to make available in a small way some money for these superannuated men, but it is sadly inadequate. They have their own superannuation charges to pay, and they are not too well off, in any event; but they have done a great deal.

We recognise the difficulty of this problem. The Minister has been asked Questions in the House, and has had representations from the trade union to which my colleague the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) belongs —the Transport Salaried Staffs Association—which has, throughout its history, taken care of this matter and made representations to the present Minister and to previous Ministers, to the British Transport Commission and to the employers when the railways were run by private companies, but without any great success. We are not unmindful of all this, and we are hoping that the Minister will not tell us tonight that he can do nothing about it.

I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Commission will examine this problem and see what can be done. As far as the old North-Western fund is concerned, I do not think there is any solution. We have letters from Southern Railway men, men on the old Great Western and the other companies who are interested in this matter. We shall listen with great interest and anxiety to the Minister and to what he has to say tonight, and we thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckingham for giving us this opportunity to speak on this subject.

11.36 p.m.

Captain Robert Ryder (Merton and Morden)

I should like in a few words to support the case which my hon. and gallant Friend has so ably put. This is really an urgent and special case. This section of the community, the railway super-annuitants, are facing a desperate situation in their old age, through no fault of their own. For many years they had contributed to the pension funds, and had loyally served their country in responsible posts. It is an absolute tragedy that they should be forced into their present plight.

These men are in a special position. They have no one to turn to. Owing to nationalisation, all the former railway employers were virtually exterminated. These men are therefore dependent on what the Minister can do, and in view of the fact that other branches have had their pensions increased to assist them meet the increased cost of living, I hope he will give this matter his serious attention.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)

I have one suggestion to make. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham), like myself and the two hon. Gentlemen opposite, was connected with the railways in the past. They will recollect that in the days before the war cases arose in which men who had small pensions had them supplemented by an ex gratia payment from the old companies. The nationalised industry should not be a worse employer than the old private companies, and should be able in some cases to overcome difficulties temporarily by a similar scheme.

11.38 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

I am sure we shall all be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) for raising this matter, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) for speaking. I can assure them that, as Minister, I do view with great anxiety the position of these people, some of whom, after years of loyal service, are in great personal difficulty. I think my hon. and gallant Friend was right to raise this subject tonight.

I hope I shall be forgiven a little historical reference in this matter, because it is important to know how the matter comes before the House of Commons. The Transport Commission inherited a number of statutory superannuation schemes for the salaried staffs of the railways. There are 100,000 people in these schemes and 34,000 now drawing benefits. The usual, but not universal, arrangements is that there is a lump sum of about one year's salary after 40 years service on the line and an annuity of about one-half of the last annual salary drawn by the men concerned. The usual position would be that after 25 year's service a man earning £200 a year at the conclusion of his service would get a minimum pension of £120 a year. Now, these people, like many others having fixed incomes and having small capital, are hard hit by the heavy cost of living.

If I state certain facts now, it does not in any way suggest that I am not wholly sympathetic to the position of these people, because truly I am. When the Transport Commission inherited the obligations of the railway companies in this regard, they inherited three duties: First, as employers, to continue the employer's payments, which last year, for example, amounted to some £2,200,000; second, to maintain the guaranteed rate of interest on the money held in the fund; and third, to make deficiency grants which would bring up the fund to such a figure that the guaranteed payments should be made.

The hard fact is that that last obligation last year cost the railways £4½ million, and it will get heavier as the years go by and as rising salaries are, quite properly, paid. When the British Transport Commission inherited these railway schemes, all the schemes to all intents and purposes were actuarily insolvent, and the payments, like last year, of £4½ million, to bring the payments up to the guaranteed amount, have been met not out of the fund, but out of the revenue of the British Transport Commission. Last year, therefore, 75 per cent. of all the pension payments made were made by the employers—the British Transport Commission; and that proportion will, unless something unexpected happens, go on increasing.

The Transport Commission has a duty to all its employees. Only a very small number—less than one-half of the wage-earning, as opposed to the salary-earning, employees of the railways—are in any pensions scheme run by the railways. And yet the Transport Commission have a duty, of course, to all their employees. This presents some difficulties.

The House has lately welcomed—on 16th June—the Pensions (Increase) Bill, which is limited to those people whose salaries are a direct charge on the Government, whether the State or the local authority. No Government have attempted to apply——

Mr. L. M. Lever (Manchester, Ardwick)

Does that include retired police officers and their widows?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I would hesitate to answer for a body of people who are not my Ministerial responsibility, but I think I am right in saying that it does apply to them. I nope, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will not be challenged if I am guilty of some inaccuracy. It applies to those people who have normally come within the purview of the Pensions (Increase) Acts.

Small as this pension is after years of devoted service, there will be railway pensioners who will be getting actually more than civil servants and some others who will not get the full advantages of the Pensions (Increase) Bill. It is true, however, that some railway pensioners will be getting less than many people under the Bill, and a great many, of course—indeed, most of them, except for single men—will be getting less than National Insurance retirement pensions, which it was the intention of the Government should be raised on, I think, 1st October next.

We are placed in this difficulty. There are a large number of these railway pensioners. A certain number of them are, I fear, no doubt undergoing very considerable hardship, but the minimum pensions for these railway pensioners will still exceed the corresponding pension benefits given to civil servants and to local government officials. None the less, it is quite fair to say that increases in pensions of up to the value of £450 have been given under past Pensions (Increase) Acts and under the Bill will be given up to £550, while for the railwaymen there has been no increase whatever for anyone getting more than £120 a year.

I appreciate very much the hardship which many people must be suffering. It is my hope that the worst cases were dealt with in 1944 when those whose pensions dated from before the 1923 amalgamation, and who were not entitled to the minimum benefits, were, by arrangements of the old Railway Executive, so entitled, but none the less a number of hardships still remain. I am in touch with my colleagues who are concerned about this matter. I have no doubt that the British Transport Commission will read the report of this debate. They have a statutory duty, taking one year with another, to make ends meet. They are also anxious to be good employers. In cases of particular personal hardship, I have no doubt whatever that they would be anxious to find means whereby the most difficult cases could be met.

I ask the indulgence of the House for not being able to go further than this. I merely express the genuine understanding of this case which hon. Members on both sides have shown, my hope that individual hardships may be dealt with and my belief that the best way any Government can deal with the problems of all pensioners is to try to call a halt to the rising cost of living which, although it hits everybody, hits in particular those people who are not able to get increased wages and salaries, and who, with inadequate means, have to meet the difficulties of life today.

Mr. Percy Morris (Swansea, West)

Is the Minister suggesting that those men who are undergoing extreme hardship should make individual applications to the B.T.C.?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

No. I am not suggesting that. Obviously the B.T.C., like any other employer—and I have certain experience in private business myself— will remember that one tries to keep in touch with employees who have done good service for the firm. I do not wish to cut off the contact which would normally exist between a good employer and his former employees. All I said was that the B.T.C. will naturally read the report of this debate. We are all anxious to do what is possible to help. Some have suggested that pensions should be tied to National Insurance rates, but that would not meet all the needs in this case. For example, the single pensioner is getting-more as a railwayman than he would under this Bill or under National Insurance.

We have to consider the problem in all its wide ramifications. All I said was that I hope it may be possible to find some means whereby the hardest cases can be dealt with. I have no doubt that this debate and its implications will be noted not only by myself and my right hon. Friends, but by the employers in this case, but we must not unduly raise anyone's hopes, because the employers have a very difficult task here. I have no doubt that the unanimous feeling on both sides by hon. Members deeply concerned about this matter may well play its part in helping to form opinion upon it.

Mr. Morris

I can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that those of us who have the privilege of representing these people should make further representations to the B.T.C. to see if something can be done.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I would not suggest that the hon. Gentleman should in any way curtail the efforts in which he has been engaged for a number of years, and in which I myself, in a private capacity, have also taken part.

Major Markham

May I thank the Minister for the very sympathetic reply which he has given to the appeal which has been made by myself and other hon. Members. I hope that the representations to the B.T.C. will be successful.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes to Twelve o'clock.