HC Deb 25 June 1953 vol 516 cc2083-5
24. Mr. Marlowe

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Civil Service pensioners whose pensions were stabilised in 1935, at a figure below the 1922 level, are still alive and in receipt of a pension; and, having regard to the Pensions Increases Acts passed since then, how many of them are still in receipt of a pension below the 1922 level.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I presume my hon. and learned Friend is referring to civil servants in receipt of pensions calculated on salaries at, or about, the 1935 basis. I am afraid that exact figures are not available, but there are probably about 45,000 Civil Service pensions awarded up to 31st March, 1946, now in issue, and perhaps about 5 per cent. of these would (after allowing for Pensions Increase) still be at rates significantly below 1922 levels. These would, of course, be pensioners drawing the higher rates of pension.

Mr. Marlowe

That means there are about 2,000 or 3,000 pensioners affected, and does not that make nonsense of the Minister of Defence's answer the other day in another place when he said that to award higher pensions to retired officers would open the flood gates for claims from the Civil Service? If there are only 2,000 or 3,000 of these people, why does the hon. Gentleman not get on with it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am sure my hon. and learned Friend is perfectly well aware that the repercussive effects of the matter to which he referred would not be confined to the special matter of this Question.

Mr. Marlowe

That is a legal phrase which means nothing at all. Every time I try to raise this matter to get details I am given evasive answers of that kind. Can the hon. Gentleman not give us some specific information?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. and learned Gentleman has put down a Question and he has had an answer to it. His reference to evasion is wholly inconsistent with the fact that his Question was fully answered, though it might indicate his desire to debate other matters which do not arise on this Question at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

Is the Financial Secretary aware that he is not really saving any money by adopting this parsimonious attitude, because the number of pensioners on pension who are now having to rely upon National Assistance is rising steadily, so he is having to pay out more money through National Assistance expenditure than he otherwise would have to pay if he adopted a reasonable attitude instead of this cavalier fashion?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had followed the answer which I gave to my hon. and learned Friend, he would have appreciated that the only pensioners affected by the proposal embodied in this Question are those receiving the higher rates of pension, and therefore questions of National Assistance do not in general arise.

Mr. Assheton

Does my hon. Friend agree that none the less there is a very real problem to be solved here?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I agree that this is an important matter. I do not agree that it arises out of this Question.

25. Mr. Marlowe

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of increasing the pensions of those civil servants whose pensions were stabilised in 1935 by an amount equivalent to that payable to a retired officer of the Armed Forces if the pension of the latter were restored to the 1920 level.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The basis on which Civil Service pensions are calculated is so different from that applicable to retired officers of the Armed Forces that there would be room for substantial differences of opinion about what would constitute equivalent increases in the two cases. Subject to this, the best estimate which I can give is a figure of the order of £150,000 a year.

Mr. Marlowe

Again, is it not trifling with this question to say that the officers' pensions cannot be dealt with because it might involve another claim of £150,000? I ask my hon. Friend to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this matter needs immediate attention.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

As my hon. and learned Friend prefaced his supplementary question with the word "again," I cannot do better than refer him to my reply to his previous one.