HC Deb 17 March 1953 vol 512 cc2203-14

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

10.10 p.m.

Major Sydney Markham (Buckingham)

I count myself very fortunate in having secured the Adjournment again in order to raise the question of railway pensions. Hon. Members will remember that on 19th June last there was what one might call universal pressure from both sides of the House on the Minister of Transport and, through the Minister, on the Transport Commission, that there should be a review of the question of pre-war railway pensions. At that time, although the Minister was very sympathetic, he could report no progress. I sincerely hope that as a result of this Adjournment debate we shall find that there has been some progress and that the position of railway pensioners throughout the country will be somewhat better as a result of our deliberations tonight.

I remember that when I spoke on the Adjournment Motion on 19th June last I was supported by Mr. Albert Edward Davies, the late Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. I should like to pay a tribute, across the Floor of the House, to a man whose work for the railway workers of this country was absolutely outstanding. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I felt very proud to be backed by such a splendid man, and if we have made any progress since I think some of the credit should go to him. The whole House mourns his loss.

I think it is universally recognised that of all the industrial workers of this country there are none who for pride of craftsmanship, devotion to duty and moral virtues excel the railwaymen. Not only have they built up in this country the finest railway service in the world, but they have taught the rest of the world how to make and to use railways. It is, therefore, a great shock to realise that some of these men are now receiving a pension of only 7s. or 12s. a week as a result of the years they spent in the service.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)

Some only 8d. a week.

Major Markham

That, of course, is even more astonishing.

Those to whom I am referring especially are men with whom I had the honour to serve 30 years ago. They were in the old London and North-Western Railway system and were paying a 1d. or 2d. a week and get only 7s. or 12s. a week now. We know that the cost of living has doubled since 1938, but in the interval, particularly in the post-war years, nothing has been done to make the lot of these former railway workers more comfortable.

In his speech on 19th June, Mr. Davies quoted the fact that even those better off under the pensions schemes were only getting 47s. a week compared with the National Assistance payment of 59s. a week. I think the House will agree that the plight of some of these men is deplorable. Yet among these former räilway workers there are many who are so sturdy and independent of spirit—for which we praise them—that they are very loth to go to the National Assistance Board to make up their income. After all, it is not an excessive income even when they get everything they can under present pensions regulations.

This is a direct moral obligation on the Transport Commission. The matter has been raised time after time in this House. Hon. Members whom I see present tonight have put questions to the Minister, but so far there has been no result. In addition, there has been dignified pressure from outside bodies such as the T.S.S.A., which is so ably represented in this House by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), the British Railways Super-annuitants Federation, the British Railways Retired Salaried Staff Association and the great railway trade unions. All these bodies have helped to put forward the case in its clarity and strength. But the years have gone by and, so far there has been no result.

I am sure that the Transport Commission are not as heartless as one would apparently have cause to think, judging by their refusal so far to grant any concessions. I hope that the talks which the Minister has had with the Commission in the last few weeks will enable him to report some progress in this matter for which many of us have fought so hard in the past. I would remind the Minister that last June he said he viewed with great anxiety the position of these pensioners, some of whom had given years of devoted service, and who were in great personal difficulty. He added that he hoped it might be possible to find some means by which the hardest cases could be dealt with.

That is the point of my remarks tonight. It is the hardest cases we wish to have dealt with immediately and urgently. The time for further deliberation or procrastination has gone by. We know we have the sympathy of the Minister, and we wish to know whether he has been able to bring the Transport Commission over to his view, which I am sure is also the view of every hon. Member of the House.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley (Southampton, Itchen)

I am glad of the opportunity to speak in support of the case put forward so lucidly and so persuasively by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Major Markham). These railway pensioners are among the most unfortunate in the country. In the last 10 years there have been three Pensions (Increase) Acts under which increases have been given to Civil Service pensioners, local government officials, teachers and pensioners from the Forces. In addition, State pensioners have received increases.

It is true that none of these pensioners is altogether satisfied with the increases granted. They are continually asking for more, but at any rate the State has recognised that it was a moral duty to give them an increase which would at least cushion them to some degree against the rise in the cost of living. But the railway pensioners have had no rise since 1938.

There are those formerly employed in the clerical and administrative grades who contributed toward their pensions at the rate of from 2½ per cent. to 8 per cent. of their salary. Naturally, they thought to receive in their pensions £s of equal value to the £s they contributed. But, in fact, the £s they are receiving in pension are less than half the value of the £s they contributed. I have had a good deal of correspondence with people representing the retired members of the clerical and administrative grades of the railway service. They inform me that many of their members, who draw higher pay than the operative workers, are drawing a pension of only £120 a year.

With the help of savings it might have been just possible in 1938 for a married man to live on a pension of £120 a year. But everybody would agree that that is not possible now. In most cases the savings which they have accumulated, which, of course, were not large, have long since disappeared. There are now a number of men in their mid-seventies and even in their late seventies who have been forced to go out to get some sort of job to augment their miserable pensions in order to keep alive.

I know that this is the responsibility of the Transport Commission and that the Commission has not a great deal of money to spare. But since the State has taken over the railways, the State has the same responsibility towards the pensioners as it has towards its more directly employed servants such as the teachers, the civil servants and former members of the Services. It should be possible to devise means whereby a grant could be given to the Commission so that it could give these men the increases which they thoroughly deserve and which they need so much.

It may need a little bit of ingenuity to devise a scheme by which financial assistance could be given to the Commission, but I am sure that the Minister is sympathetic. Whatever criticism may be directed against him nobody has ever accused him of lack of ingenuity. I hope that he will be able to suggest means by which this most deserving body of men may have their meagre pensions increased.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland (Lanark)

As representative of a constituency which includes the important railway junction of Carstairs, I ask the forbearance of the House while I read a letter which shows the sense of cynicism and frustration which is now gripping some railway pensioners. Only this week I received a letter from one who wrote: …the Commission are acting on the principle that the longer they delay, the more pensioners will die and, consequently, the need for any sympathetic action on their part will diminish.… One naturally expects more generous treatment from a Government-owned concern than from one privately owned, particularly as other bodies, such as the police, firemen, teachers, etc., have had their pensions increased at least twice. I do not think I exaggerate in the slightest when I say that the Transport Commission are the only large employers in the country who expect their retired employees to exist on pre-war pensions. I cannot help but feel that the Government could help us it they were very anxious. Such is the expression, sincere, true and penetrating of one of my constituents. I make this brief intervention as representative of an important railway junction in Scotland. How can we recruit railway personnel if they have no future in regard to pension rights?

10.24 p.m.

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

I am sorry that by rising now I prevent other hon. Gentlemen from making observations. I know the depth of feeling that this most important human problem rouses among hon. Members. I wish that it were possible to have a longer debate but, as I have to stop at 10.40, perhaps I had better make one or two observations which, I hope, will add some practical consequences to the sympathy we all feel.

This question was raised in the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Major Markham) on 19th June. Since then he and many other hon. Members have repeatedly bombarded me with questions on the matter. I have never in the least resented this interest. I recognise that it springs from natural, generous and wholly proper sentiments. I should like also to say how frequently my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) has, both publicly and privately, represented this issue to me. The fact that he was not called tonight makes me more than ever anxious that his special interest should be signalised. My former colleague on a mission to Malaya, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell), has also taken a lively interest in this matter.

The British Transport Commission inherited a number of statutory superannuation schemes for railway salaried staffs. There are, I understand, about 100,000 people in these schemes, and some 34,000 now drawing benefits. The usual but not universal plan has been the payment of a lump sum of about one year's salary after 40 years, which no one would claim was extravagant, and an annuity of about half the last annual salary. That was the general but not the uniform scheme.

The Commission, as the heirs of the old railway companies, inherited a number of duties. The first was to pay the employers' contributions, and last year this cost the Commission £2,200,000. Their second duty was to maintain the guaranteed rate of interest on the money in the fund, and their third duty was to make deficiency grants to bring up the fund to such a figure that the guaranteed payments could be made to the beneficiaries. In 1951, this cost the Commission £4½ million, and it will cost more as time goes on. The schemes which the Commission inherited were actuarially insolvent, for reasons into which I need not go now, and it is true to say that in 1951 the Commission had to pay 75 per cent. of all the contributions payable by employers or employed.

I should like to make it plain to the House that, from the moment I became Minister, I have been constantly urged by the Commission to recognise the need to help them in another field which will make it easier for them to help the salaried staffs in this field, and I should like to indicate how we have managed to work out a more helpful working arrangement.

In the debate in June, I mentioned that the Commission had a duty to all their employees, whether wage earners or salaried staff. Only about one half of the wage earners were in the pensions schemes, and the Commission, in dealing with the salaried staff, are deeply conscious of the embarrassment which singular treatment to one section would create. People of similar economic circumstances, though they happen to be in different categories, may be living side by side, and the Commission have to remember that fact.

When I last addressed the House on this matter, I was not then in a position to say that something could be done about the wages staff. Yesterday, at Question time, I was asked two Questions, one written and one oral, on what could be done about the wage-earning staff, and I hope I will be in order if I remind the House, because it is very relevant to this matter, of what I said then: I am glad to say that I recently informed the Commission that I could agree in principle to the proposal to establish a pension scheme for wages grades. I think it will be the view of hon. Members who served in the last Government that this does represent a step forward. The outline of a proposed scheme has been agreed between the Commission and the Unions and submitted to me by them, but I have not yet been able to give them my observations on the particulars of the scheme. The working out of the scheme in full actuarial and other detail is likely to take some time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 159.] The fact that we have agreed in principle to a wages scheme makes it easier to tackle the problem of the salaried staff in a slightly more generous way.

Many men, after years of devoted service, and living like a great many others, not necessarily wage earners, on fixed incomes and subject to the harsh realities of modern economic conditions, are in a very parlous situation. I said in June that I had no doubt that the British Transport Commission would read the report of the debate in the House of 19th June, and I added: 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 1711.] Shortly after the debate I had the first of a number of talks with the Chairman of the Commission, and I announced in the House in reply to a Question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) on 15th July that the British Transport Commission were examining the circumstances to which attention was drawn in the debate.

The difficulties, of course, remain considerable and the financial situation of the Commission, as has already been said, is not one which would enable them to act, as they otherwise would like to act, in a more forthcoming fashion. But the Commission have directed their attention to the worst cases and they have borne in mind, in particular, that up to July, 1948, the railway salaried staff were excepted from the ordinary State pension schemes. They have, therefore, put before me certain proposals which, though modest, will bring aid to those people who need aid most, and I would recognise that in present financial conditions this is the most that can reasonably be expected of the Commission. It is the responsibility of the Commission, and I must have regard to their statutory duty to make ends meet.

They propose to introduce a scheme for giving supplements on a graduated basis to a married man or a single man with a dependant, the value of whose retirement benefit is less than £140 a year or, in the case of an unmarried pensioner, less than £84 a year. This will deal with some 6,000 people and it will, I think, not wholly meet but will go some way towards meeting the difficulties of the worst cases.

In drawing up this scheme the Commission have been impressed with the necessity for doing something to help, in particular, the retired servants of long service who are living or trying to live on very small pensions, including men, for example, who have been promoted late in life from a non-pensionable wage grade to a salaried grade and, therefore, unable to earn a full pension. The Commission have accordingly based their proposed scale of supplements upon length of total service before retirement as well as on the actual amount of pension.

I would be very glad to discuss with hon. Members on both sides of the House details of this scheme, as I know the Commission would, for it is difficult to deal in any great detail with the problem in a short speech on an occasion like this. I feel confident that the Commission themselves will be only too happy to discuss with hon. Members the details of the proposals. These proposals will have effect as from 1st January of this year, and I should like to thank the Commission for the readiness with which they have acceded to the suggestion that, as this matter has been constantly discussed in the House, it should be back-dated to 1st January of this year.

The Commission have also assured me that they will not impose a strict means test in this matter. Where a pensioner is receiving State sickness or injury benefit or State insurance benefit as a result of having been in regular paid employment, his contributions will, of course, be taken into account as is the normal practice where pension increases have been granted in other fields. But there will not be many cases where there is a State pension being drawn because the railway salaried staff, broadly, have been excluded from the contributory State pension scheme.

I recognise that there will still be many people who will not benefit from these proposals, but I believe that the desire of the House is to deal at this stage with those who are the worst victims of the situation, and I believe that the worst cases will be taken care of.

I shoud like to thank the Commission for the way in which they have helped us in this field. As they themselves will recognise, we have, by conceding the principle of a pension scheme for wages grades, met them on a far wider field. I hope the result of all these deliberations will be to bring a greater sense of security to large numbers of people who deserve very well of their country for splendid service on the railways, whether in private or public hands, and whether in salaried or wages grades.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris (Swansea, West)

Those of us who are associated with the railway industry are very grateful to the Minister for the statement he has made in respect of the wages grades. I happen to be a member of the salaried staff. Pensions for the wages grades have been overdue for many years, and I would say on behalf of my association that we wish them well under the scheme. I am glad that the Minister is anxious to lend a helping hand, but the figures that he has just read out dismayed me. There will be only 6,000 out of 34,000 likely to derive benefit from the maxima of £184 for the married men and £84 for the single.

The fears expressed by the late Albert E. Davies in his last speech are being realised. He pointed out that many of these old officers of the railways were dependent upon supplementary assistance from the National Assistance Board. All that will happen is that the little aid that the Minister is offering will take the place of the concession being made by the National Assistance Board. It will mean no more in actual fact, but will relieve the State of a liability.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

That by no means follows. There is the very personal point to men who are proud of their right to have their own pensions after retirement. This money will be theirs and nobody-else's. That is a matter of some considerable personal importance.

Mr. Morris

I agree with the Minister, and I am grateful for that observation. He recognises that men prefer to have pensions in their own right, but they have to live, as the Minister said, side by side with other men in the same economic conditions. If the net total of the money they are to receive is no more than they are having now, they are not having anything in the way of substantial assistance. The Minister said that he would be glad to discuss the matter with hon. Members. He will appreciate that the railway unions have been very active in this matter. I hope that he will be willing to convey the results of his inquiry to the railway unions and to receive representations from them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

That is a responsibility of the Commission. They have either been or will very shortly be in touch with the unions on the matter. This is a matter which the Commission and the unions can discuss together. It is the Commission who will make the payment. I have come here to disclose to the House the Commission's own proposals.

Mr. Popplewell

I understand from the Minister that these improvements for the salaried staff are to commence as from 1st January. What is the position for the wages grades? I understand that details have to be worked out between the Commission and the trade unions, who have been very keen on putting their representations into the hands of the Minister. Can we be assured that the pensions scheme for the wages grades will come into operation on the same date as that for the salaried staff?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am only dealing here with people who are in great need. The wages grade involves a vast number of people. We must wait to see how it works out in practice, and I will announce the full conclusions to the House. We have, in one year, agreed to a principle which, for five years under the Labour Administration, resulted in no agreement at all.

10.38 a.m.

Major Markham

I would express my sincere thanks to the Minister for the way in which he has pressed this matter upon the Transport Commission. It is quite an achievement for two important principles to have been settled. It may not be all that we hoped for, but it is a step in the right direction. The Minister's own influence in this matter has not been one of the least things which have resulted in an advance which we all wanted.

Mr. Walter Monslow (Barrow-in-Furness)

I am very happy as one of the ex-wages grades concerned. It is the wages grade who, as one hon. Member has said——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.