§ 36. Sir Edward Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether a reply can now be given to the representations about the pensions of officers and officers' widows which were made on 21st July to the Minister of Defence by deputations from the Officers' Pension Society and the Officers' Association introduced by Members from both sides of the two Houses of Parliament.
§ 37. Mr. Swinglerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he is now in a position to make a statement on the matters raised with the Minister of Defence on 21st July by the Parliamentary deputation on officers' retired pay and officers' widows' pensions.
49. Brigadier Clarkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will now make a statement regarding the pensions of officers who retired prior to September, 1950.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch)The Government have given very careful consideration to the representations made to my noble Friend by the all-party deputation which he received on 21st July last. They have reluctantly concluded that the policy consistently followed by successive Governments in refusing to apply retrospectively improvements in the codes of retired pay and pensions of the Forces cannot be varied in the present case. They cannot therefore agree that the new rates of retired pay and pensions introduced with effect from 1st September, 1950, should be applied to personnel of the Forces who retired on retired pay or were discharged to pension before that date.
As regards awards to widows and dependants of officers and other ranks under what is known as the "ordinary" pensions scheme, the Government have under review the provisions of the current scheme, with full regard to the views expressed by the deputation. Considerable detailed investigation is involved. I hope to be able to inform the House of the progress we have made before it adjourns for the Christmas Recess.
§ Sir E. KeelingAs regards that blank negative about officers' pensions, is my hon. Friend aware that it costs officers who retired before 1st September, 1950, just as much to live as those who retired after that date, that the Prime Minister himself on 31st July expressed sympathy with their case, and that distress is being caused by the refusal to do anything for them. As regards widows' pensions, when he is reconsidering this matter—and it seems to take him a very long time—will he bear in mind that a captain's widow today is getting only £90 a year, which is very little more than she was getting 100 years ago?
§ Mr. BirchWith regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, it is realised that times are hard for pensioners. We all feel sympathy with them; but this is a question of principle which has been reaffirmed by successive Governments. As my hon. Friend knows, there have been some modifications and very slight mitigations as a result of the Pensions Increase Bill. With regard to widows, I am certainly fully aware of the points he has made.
Brigadier ClarkeDoes my hon. Friend appreciate that these widows have been very badly treated for a long time, especially under the Socialist Government? I hope that he will do something to help them.
§ Mr. SwinglerWhy is there any need for a further review of these cases? Are not the facts fully known and were not they put to the Minister when he received a deputation? What is the reason for a further review of these well-known anomalies with regard to pensions? Why cannot the Government now say what they intend to do about them?
§ Mr. BirchWe are going to say before Christmas, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a complicated matter and that all sorts of other considerations are involved in a matter of this kind.
§ Mr. MarloweIs the Minister aware that this answer will not do at all? This is a very grave matter, which affects the Government, and certainly we on this side of the House will not accept that answer. If he persists in this attitude there will be great trouble from all quarters of the House.
§ Mr. WiggDoes the Minister realise that his negative does not even take into account the simple fact that many of these officers are required to live on pensions which are less than they were when they were awarded 34 years ago?
§ Mr. WiggI beg to give notice that, in view of the very unsatisfactory reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.