HC Deb 31 July 1953 vol 518 cc1679-87

11.16 a.m.

Brigadier Christopher Peto (Devon, North)

The subject I wish to raise has already been discussed on several previous occasions both here and in another place. The last occasion when I spoke on this subject was in the Adjournment debate before the Christmas Recess on 19th December last. As then, so now, I must declare an interest. I retired from the active part of the Army in November, 1946, after over 31 years service, and I come for pension or retired pay under the new code of 1946 (Cmd. 6750), which is applicable to those who retired after 19th December, 1945. Therefore, I have a distinct interest in the result of this debate.

I should like to emphasise again in the last few words which I said on 19th December. I was speaking on behalf of certain classes of officers who are suffering great injustice. I said: We do not ask the country to overstrain itself on our behalf, but we do ask for justice, and for my part, whatever the cost and whatever the inconvenience to the Government, I shall not rest until we get a satisfactory answer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 1826.] In raising the same subject today, my main object is to focus public opinion on the need for fair play and justice for certain old officers who served their country to the best of their ability for a long period of years in all three Services. In addition, there is perhaps the more important aspect which the Government would be well advised to bear in mind that there is a danger that any Government who repeatedly neglect a just claim put forward on behalf of a section of the community will in the end forfeit the respect and confidence of a large number of people.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

The present Government never had it.

Brigadier Peto

The Government will engender a certain mistrust in the future on the part of those who are potential officers wondering whether to become Regulars or perhaps to serve for only the two years of their National Service.

In the simplest of terms, what I am asking is that those officers who retired before 1st September, 1950, should have their retired pay raised to the rates applicable to those who retired after that date. That is a simple request. The total cost in round figures would be about £2 million a year. I shall not weary the House by detailing the different changes since 1919. They are by now fairly well known not only by hon. Members but generally. Suffice it to say that between 1919 and 1935 pensions were linked to the cost of living and were subject to periodic review. In 1935, to use a word which I think describes this most accurately and which was used by Lord Schuster in another place, pensions were "fixed" at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 rates.

Many arguments are put forward on behalf of the Government showing why these things cannot be done. I admit that, from 1935 to 1938, there was a slight increase in the purchasing power of the £, and therefore, as a result, the fixing of the pensions was to some extent an advantage to those officers up to that date. On the other hand, if hon. Members care to look at Volume 510 of HANSARD, column 244 for 6th February, they will see that the Chancellor gave certain figures, in reply to a Question, showing the purchasing power of the £, starting with 1938 representing 100. They show that every year the purchasing power of the £ has depreciated in value until, in 1952, which was the last year compared with the figure of 100 in 1938, that purchasing power was only 44.

I personally prefer to take the purchasing power of the £ at 20s, and not 100 in 1938, and if one works it out on that basis, we find that, where an officer had 20s. to spend in 1939, he now has 8s. 10d. There are a number of ex-officers who are trying to exist on a pension given to them on the basis of the £ being worth 20s. at that time, and whose pensions are now worth well under half of what they were worth at that date. There are not many in this category who are completely cut in this way. The figures were given in another place. There are 359, all of whom are old veterans of the First World War, but there are over 6,000 who are not quite so badly treated, but who nevertheless are suffering grave injustice as compared with those who retired since 1st September, 1950.

The cost of restoring the cut made in 1935 would be very small; in fact, £210,000 a year, but, as the Minister of Defence said in another place on 17th June, such a course—that is to say, to restore the cuts for that small number of officers—would not be in accordance with Government policy. In any case, I am quite sure that I speak for all hon. Members who are interested when I say that it would not satisfy us. It certainly would not satisfy me. It might conceivably take some of the sting out of our arguments, but we shall continue until we get satisfaction.

I cannot see why officers who retire after a certain arbitrary date in 1950 should be at a considerable financial disadvantage as compared with those who retired before that date. There is, of course, the old parable of working for a penny a day, but I do not think there is any comparison between working for a penny a day in the 1914 war and working for a penny a day in the more recent war. I happened to be in both, and I can say with honesty that the first World War was 100 per cent. worse than the more recent one for the vast majority of people fighting.

Those officers who gave everything they had other than their lives are at a disadvantage as compared with those who have retired since 1950, and the Government must find an answer which is acceptable to them. To me, as a cavalryman, I find it particularly distasteful to see a Conservative Government, faced with this small obstacle of the Treasury triple bar, digging their toes in time after time and refusing to take the obstacle. Let us close our eyes for a moment and imagine that we have an arena and a small triple bar, with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, a nervous rider, about to mount a well known horse which was used for the Trooping the Colour and whose name escapes me at the moment——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch)

Winston.

Brigadier Peto

—quite right—and trying to force it over this comparatively small obstacle. As a soldier of some years' service, I could offer him a little advice. He should choose the moment when the going is good, ride in blinkers so that this horse cannot be distracted by other things on all sides and get him over that fence—or through it—but he must not have another refusal.

In conclusion, I want to say that this is not a party matter, for both sides of the House feel equally strongly about it. All that we ask is justice for those who fought for their country and who now, for one reason or another, are not in a position to fight for themselves. For myself, as long as I am in Parliament, I cannot allow this matter to rest until I get satisfaction.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

I want to support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto), but I do not stake my claim as high as he I rest my case, as he does, not on the grounds that these ex-officers want charity, but that what we are asking for is justice.

There is no doubt whatever that, in 1935—and I am making no political case, because we have approached the problem on a non-party basis—there was a breach of faith, and I do not apologise for taking time to recall to our minds the extent of that breach of faith. In 1919, there were two Army Orders, No. 325 for other ranks and No. 324 for officers, which provided for a sliding scale with a tolerance, up and down, of 20 per cent. In 1934, the Government threw it overboard, and said that the rates of retired pay for ex-officers should be fixed at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 rates. I stake my claim today, as I did on the 19th December, 1945, on the basis that the Government, in plain justice and honesty, ought to give a 29½ per cent. increase to all officers who retired before 1946.

I should like to go much further than that, because, as far as I know, the Government have no case at all. Neither the Parliamentary Secretary here nor his noble Friend in another place has ever attempted to answer the case, and, in fact, there is no case beyond the fact that the Treasury do not like these retrospective settlements or giving increases with retrospective effect. The cost of meeting this demand is £370,000, but, if the Government hit somebody in the Treasury on the head and made him disgorge that £370,000, it would have a value far beyond that of the money itself.

As I said a few nights ago during the defence debate, I am quite sure that the difficulties about recruiting, of getting officers to undertake a career in the Army and of persuading other ranks to stay in the Army, are due to the fact that they do not believe that the Army no matter who happens to be the Secretary of State for War, will give them a square deal. They feel that whatever promises are made to them, once the propaganda headlines and the attractive brochures and posters are taken away, someone will be done down.

We had a classic example of this on the eve of the last Christmas Recess when the Minister concerned made an announcement about pensions for the widows of other ranks. At first sight it looked good, but when one examined it more closely it resembled what happened in 1935. Of course, it did not involve a breach of faith as did the 1935 settlement. Despite all the difficulties that exist on this matter between the Service Departments and the Treasury, the Service Ministers know that they have the whole House behind them. They have a cast-iron case, and they are in a position to resist the Treasury's refusal to do anything.

I should have thought that even if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot go as far as his hon. and gallant Friend wants him to go, he could, at least, go as far as I want him to go and say that he recognises that the 1935 settlement, dictated, as it was, in the circumstances of that time, was wrong, and that his noble Friend will do his best to extract from the Treasury this very ordinary concession involving an expenditure of only £370,000. Were he to do that, I am sure there would be a different feeling throughout the Services and a recognition that a past injustice had, perhaps for the first time in history, been put right, and that those who have given their lives in the Service of the Crown have not been forgotten.

We all talk about old soldiers, and tears come to our eyes on Armistice Day, but here is an opportunity to do something which would have a very real meaning to the men concerned and their families, men who have given great service to the country and without which the country would have met defeat in the First World War. They are the most un complaining class of all. They accept duty in the same way as they breathe the air or take their food. They do it without any question and do not complain.

It may be that some of them would be upset because of the way in which I am complaining today on their behalf. But I do not apologise for doing so. As the House knows, I have spent most of my life in the Regular Army, and I honour the integrity and the devotion to duty of this particular group of men. The fact that they are my comrades—though they were officers and I was a member of the other ranks—gives me an opportunity to plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to right the very great wrong done in 1935 and to do something at last for those officers who retired before 1946.

11.34 a.m.

Miss Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

On the last occasion on which we debated this matter, I, too, tried to intervene, but was unfortunate in not catching your eye, Mr. Speaker. Today, I am more fortunate. I do not intend to go over the ground again, because I have no personal connection with the Services, but I want to add my voice to the case that is being made. I will not call it a plea, because I do not see why we should plead in this matter. I think that we are making a straight, an honourable and a just case. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Treasury should not accede to the wishes of the House in this matter.

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence spoke to the House last December, almost everything he said was incorrect, that is to say, the wrong interpretation was placed upon the case put forward by hon. Members. I will give one example, because I think it is a very good thing to have it on record. In June last, the Minister of Defence, in another place, implied that the Stabilisation Order, 1935, met the wishes of those officers concerned, and, indeed, was welcomed by them, but that he was open to correction. But that is not entirely true. I feel very strongly that it is a very unfair way of presenting a case, because the ordinary public, on reading that, would think that what the Minister said was correct, when, in fact, it was not. We have the evidence of letters which were written at the time protesting against the decision made.

In another place, it was stated that the Minister of Defence, was naturally—as, indeed, I am sure he is—in favour of the claim being put forward, but he very rightly and properly pointed out that he was a member of a team, and that, therefore, he played the game by the team and accepted the decision of the team. That may be so, but I have been in Parliament a very long time, and I know that if Ministers go to the Cabinet and argue strongly in defence of a claim which they are putting forward, they can, on occasion, carry the Cabinet with them. I feel that the Minister of Defence was in a very difficult position, because, of course, he was a Regular serving soldier.

My own view is that a great many Members of the Cabinet do not know sufficient about the case that has been put forward. A great many of them are concerned with defence on a wide scale and with the economic situation on a wide scale. They are concerned to give support to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Minister of Labour, and they do not get down to the human details of the kind of case that we are putting forward today.

It is extremely embarrassing on this issue to have a Parliamentary Secretary in the House of Commons who is not in the Cabinet, and, therefore, does not have to go to his Cabinet colleagues and argue the case. I do not want to join with hon. and right hon. Members opposite in complaining about Ministers in another place, but I think that in this case it is extremely embarrassing. If the Government want to get over that hurdle and want to have less criticism, then they have an admirable opportunity of showing that the position is not affected just because we have only a Parliamentary Secretary in the House of Commons.

I take a very strong interest in what I like to call the small income groups. In this House there is only a handful of people who speak for these retired officers. If they had the whole of the trade union movement behind them, the Government would give way. If they had the whole of the Civil Service behind them, the Government would give way.

Mr. Alfred Robens (Blyth)

No, a Royal Commission.

Miss Ward

I seriously suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if we do not get justice on this occasion, we should consider opposing the Army Estimates on the next occasion. I should have very great pleasure in doing that because it may be the only way of getting any action taken. These people have no really organised voice to speak for them outside their own organisations, such as the Officers' Pensions Association and the Officers' Society, which, in fact, plead their case. They have no big guns to bring forward. I feel very strongly that it is not decent to listen to pressure from the big chaps and not listen to pressure from the small chaps. It is not the kind of thing I like my Government to do and it is not the kind of thing which is consistent with the spirit of the British people.

We believe in the rights of minorities and the rights of individuals. It is much more difficult for a Regular ex-Service man to plead his case than it is for the civil servant or the trade unionist or others. That is all the more reason why the Government should be the protector of minorities. Unless we get satisfaction, then, if I am spared and if I am still in the House, I look forward to opposing the Service Estimates next year in order to raise this case again.

11.41 a.m.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Test)

As a civilian I consider it my duty to support this case, as I support the general case of the ex-Service man for justice. To me the case is a very simple one, both as it affects officers and as it affects other ranks. We have decided from time to time to give certain rewards in the form of pensions and allowances to ex-Service men. Those pensions have declined in value. Indeed, they have declined in value during the last two years inasmuch as the £ is worth 18s. 7d. now compared with 20s. two years ago. The £ is worth some 14s. when measured against the pensions which we gave in 1945. As the hon. and gallant Member for Devon, North (Brig. Peto) pointed out, the pensions of some of these officers are measured in £s which are now worth 8s. or 9s. when compared with 1939.

We have a duty to honour these obligations even in the terms in which they were undertaken in 1945. The men who had pensions awarded at that time have the right to have them made up to the value of 1945. That is even more the case with officers who had pensions awarded in pre-war years. They have a right to have their pensions made up to the same value as that which they held when awarded. The least we can do is to make up the pensions of these officers to their value when they were given.

I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) called attention to the fact that this is a group of people living on fixed incomes, and such people are the real sufferers from the rise in the cost of living. If we can do something this morning to meet the case of one of these little groups, we shall have done not some act of charity but our duty.

11.44 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe (Hove)

I am very glad that two hon. Members opposite have taken part in this debate and illustrated once again that this is entirely a non-party matter and is based simply on the claims of common justice. The matter is one which demands the sympathy of all of us when we consider the services which have been rendered to the country by these officers who are now suffering from the increased cost of living which has taken place over a number of years.

We have had several debates on this subject from time to time but there has been an air of unreality in that nobody disputes that the case is sound and there is no need for us to put forward arguments in its favour.

Forward to