HC Deb 31 July 1953 vol 518 cc1688-93
Mr. Marlowe

I was saying that there is an unreality about these debates because the case for dealing with these pensions is so obvious that it scarcely needs arguing, and it is quite evident that both the noble Lord the Minister of Defence in the other place and the Parliamentary Secretary here have very little belief in the case which they have to put forward. Time after time they have been reading out a rather well-thumbed Treasury brief, which must be almost illegible by this time, full of irrelevancies and having little to do with the problem.

I can give the House a few examples of irrelevancies, though I hope that the Minister will not bore us by repeating them today, because we all know them and know that there is no foundation to their arguments. I hope that we shall not be told once more that this and that cannot be done because there is no such thing as retrospection in dealing with increases in pension. That is utterly untrue. Pensions have been increased retrospectively time and time again. Within the last decade there have been at least three Pensions Increase Acts and they have all increased pensions retrospectively. The only point is that they put a ceiling on pensions. The ceiling has been generally dealt with on the basis of hardship cases. The officers are now on the hardship level, and there is really no foundation for all the rubbish which is talked about retrospection in this matter.

The Department have been trying to get away with another ridiculous story. They say that there are not many of these officers now affected because most of them have had their pensions made up by having added service during the war. That means that a lot of these officers were receiving pensions up to 1939. They were recalled and did additional service, and as a result of that added service they have got increased pensions. But that has got nothing to do with the increase in their basic pensions. It is payment for additional service. I hope that we shall not have that nonsensical argument again. As a matter of fact, I do not think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will need much time to reply because all these nonsensical arguments have been demolished.

Another statement in this dog-eared brief with which we are so familiar is, "If you give this increase it will lead to a general pressure of increased pay claims." Of course, there is no foundation for that assertion either. The increased pay claims have already taken place. Millions of people have had their increases, and if this increase were given, there would be no justification for all those who have already had increases to say "We must, therefore, have some more." There is nothing in that point.

It should be remembered that, with one exception, this case is unique. There is no other body of people in this country who had a 9½ per cent. reduction in 1935 and have been pegged down to that level ever since. As I say, with one exception this is unique. The exception relates to some civil servants, and not a great number of them either. Their position is, in fact, quite different. They are on a very different structure of pay and superannuation, and it has no relation to the case of the retired officers.

The last defence of the Treasury always in this matter is, "We cannot really deal with this matter separately from the Civil Service. If we give an increase in pensions to retired officers, we have got to give it to all the civil servants." That, again, is utterly untrue. A few of them were in the 9½ per cent. frozen category, but, mainly speaking, there is a great difference between them. I do not understand the case that the two have always got to be considered together. I think there is a world of difference between the servant of the public who risks his life and the man who does not. This story is trotted out every time this brief is read out. But who prepares the brief?—the civil servants, of course. It is their case only, and they are fighting in the last ditch for their case at the expense of these officers. I hope that will not be allowed to continue.

The remarkable thing about this case is this. Suppose for a moment that there is some foundation for the case that they must be considered together. I have been probing this matter since the last time we had a debate, by Question and answer in this House—at least, by Question, for I have never had much of an answer. I have been putting a lot of Questions to the Treasury on this matter. Even if the equivalent increase were given to these civil servants affected, the number of civil servants affected is only 2,500 and the total amount involved would be £150,000. That is the sum total.

The result based on replies to the Questions which I have put to the Treasury about it has taken some working out, because the answers have been evasive and carefully wrapped up in order to give as little information as possible. But if that is the amount involved, it is a very small bill to have to meet in order to grant this simple case of justice.

Some of us are rather perturbed at the news of the appointment of the Royal Commission dealing with the structure of pay and pensions in the Civil Service. I hope that because all other arguments against the case for officers' pensions have now been destroyed, this is not another fence which is being put up by the Treasury so that they say, "We cannot now deal with the matter at all until the Royal Commission has reported." One knows only too well that that is a device sometimes employed and the whole matter has to be shelved. These matters are totally separate, and I hope that my hon. Friend is not now going to resort to that device.

There is a straightforward simple case of justice here, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) that if this case is not met some of us will have to take firm action about it. I certainly would not hesitate to vote against the Government on this issue. It is a straightforward issue, and one on which I would be happy to face my constituents if I voted against the Government on it.

12.6 p.m.

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

As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto) pointed out, we have already debated this subject several times and it has recently been debated in another place. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) has informed me that all my arguments are already demolished and dog-eared, but there are one or two comments that I should like to make.

First, I think it is a little unfair to accuse the Civil Service of trying to block this claim in their own interests. I have seen no evidence of that at all; in fact, it is far from being the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) said that officers have very few supporters. Actually, they have many supporters on both sides of the House who put their case, as I have good cause to know, with very great vigour. When one is unable to announce a concession, even with the eloquence of Demosthenes, one is unlikely to please, and the last thing that officers want is a lot of soft soap.

The main thing I want to say is this. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) in particular, and, to a rather lesser extent, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), put the claims of officers rather higher than has generally been done before. I am not quite clear from what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove said whether he was only asking for the restoration of the 9½ per cent. cut, or whether he was asking for the full 1950 rates. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test was really asking for more than the 1950 rates. He was asking that officers should be entirely spared all results of inflation.

It is perfectly true that inflation has caused, and is causing, suffering to everybody living on a fixed income. The question arises, however, whether it is really possible for the State to compensate all who have suffered from inflation. Some classes of people suffer very little from inflation—the ordinary wage earner, for example, whose wages lag slightly behind the cost of living, although, on the whole, his increase in wages marches fairly closely in step with the rise in the cost of living. But that is not so with those whom we are now considering, and it is perfectly true to say that they have suffered.

On the other hand, if hon. Members say that officers must be completely compensated, it will be very difficult, especially to go as far as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove does and say that nobody else need be compensated. I do not think we can draw that distinction and say that only one class of Service pensioners or one class of person in the country should be able to get away from the evil consequences of inflation.

Mr. Marlowe

That is not the point. The point I am putting is that these are a unique class of case. They are the ones who were cut in 1935 and the others were not.

Mr. Birch

I was dealing with the claim that everyone should have the 1950 rates. As to the 9½ per cent. cut, it is not quite true to say that they were the only people affected. There were, in fact, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has elicited from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer by a number of Questions, parallel cuts in the Civil Service, and, in equity, if we restore one we have to restore the other.

Mr. Wigg

But there is a great difference. After all, the Civil Service were not subject to the provisions of Army Order 324, 1919.

Mr. Birch

That, of course, as the hon. Member knows, is a very old argument.

Mr. Ede

That is a silly thing for a Conservative to say.

Mr. Birch

It has been refuted from this Box by the right hon. Gentleman's party.

I should like to take up one point of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth. She said it was quite untrue to say that the Service people at the time wanted the pensions stabilised. I have taken the trouble to look back at the files concerning events of those days, and it is true, as far as I can make out, that all the pensioners were in favour of stabilisation. It certainly has worked out badly in the event, but none the less, the pressure was in favour of stabilisation.

On the point of retrospection, it is true that the Pensions Increase Acts of 1944, 1947 and 1952 had certain retrospective effects, but the point has already been made that it is unusual—in fact, I do not think it is ever done—that when an entirely new pay code, such as those of 1945 and 1950, is introduced, the benefits of the new code should be automatically retrospectively applied. As my noble Friend has pointed out in another place, if, when there is a rise of pay, all the benefits have to be extended retrospectively to every single pensioner, then it will be very difficult to get any concessions out of the Treasury in the matter of pay.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North pointed out that he is a cavalry officer, and no doubt he is a much bolder horseman than I am. He urged me to get this particular horse over the obstacle. We are doing our best, but we are riding a very nappy animal and we have got a tough obstacle in front of us.

Brigadier Peto

What is its name?

Mr. Birch

My hon. and gallant Friend will be able to think of an adequate name for it. I am sorry to say that I cannot announce any concession today. I can only repeat the words of my noble Friend, that he is doing everything he can to secure a fair settlement of this matter, and I can assure the House that he is pursuing the matter with all the vigour which he can command.