§ 5. Mr. Wiggasked the Minister of Defence to what extent the Government's acceptance of the recommendation contained in paragraph 251 of the Report of the Grigg Committee, shown at the foot of page 3 of Command Paper No. 570, involves the review of pay and pensions at intervals of not more than two years with a consequent increase in these emoluments in order to take into account movements in civilian earnings over a range of occupations to be determined by agreement between the Treasury and the Service Departments.
§ Mr. SandysThe Government have accepted the principle of a biennial review of Service pay and pensions, in order to see how they compare with civilian earnings, and to make any necessary adjustments. The precise factors to be taken into account have yet to be decided. The question whether any increases are required will naturally depend on the facts revealed by the review.
§ Mr. WiggIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are once again getting pretty near to sharp practice? The idea has been sold to the public that the rates of pay and pensions are to be linked with the rise in the cost of living, and it is only, of course, when it becomes politically convenient for the Minister of Health to qualify it that we now get this emphasis on the word "review" rather than on an increase should an increase be necessary.
§ Mr. SandysI really do not know what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. What I have said is that we are going to have a review every two years to see how Service pay and pensions compare with civilian earnings and in order to decide whether, if there has been a change, any adjustment in pay and pensions is necessary. I am not going to take for granted that we are always going to have continuing inflation, which would imply a continuing increase under this arrangement in Service pay and pensions.
§ Mr. StracheyIf the Minister of Defence does not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is driving at, will he look at what his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said recently on this matter, when he made it 1122 quite clear that, in his opinion, the principle of a review precisely to meet the possibility of inflation was not accepted by the Government in relation to the Forces; and does he not agree that there is a real conflict between the implications of the two Ministers' remarks?
§ Mr. SandysI do not know to what particular statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health the right hon. Gentleman refers. I am afraid that I do not always read all my colleagues' remarks on all subjects. However, I should be exceedingly surprised, when I come to read his statement, if I found that there was any divergence of view between that statement and my own. The Government's position with regard to the revision of Service pay and pensions is very clearly set out in the White Paper, issued just the other day, and I do not think that I need add more to that.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ 9. Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Defence what action he is taking to improve the Service pensions paid to the widows of Regular officers.
§ 11. Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallettasked the Minister of Defence to what extent the Government decision to review Service pay and pensions at intervals of not more than two years, as set out in page 3 of Command Paper, No. 545, includes the pensions of officers and men who retired under the older codes, or whether it is confined to pensions yet to be paid to personnel still serving.
§ Mr. SandysAs announced in Command Paper No. 570, the Government have decided to accept the Grigg Committee's recommendations that pensions should be increased and that Service pay and pensions should be reviewed every two years. The Committee's recommendations did not cover pensions of officers already retired or their widows.
§ Mr. LiptonIs it not quite callous and inhumane to tolerate a situation in which three out of every ten of these widows get less than the National Assistance scale and six out of every ten are over 70 years of age and so cannot qualify for National Insurance benefits? How long is this 1123 victimisation of the old to be continued? Surely, the Government have some conscience in the matter.
§ Mr. SandysI am sure we all have quite as much sympathy for these people as has the hon. Gentleman without trying to work ourselves up in order to prove it.
§ Mr. LiptonProve it.
§ Mr. SandysThe Grigg Committee—and perhaps I can have the hon. Gentleman's attention—recognised that many retired officers and their widows are suffering as a result of having their pensions eaten away, to some extent, by inflation. On the other had, the Committee thought that it would be wrong to try to deal with these Service cases separately and in isolation from the general body of persons who are receiving pensions from the State.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettWhile I agree with my right hon. Friend that all public service pensioners must be considered together, may I ask him if he would not set an example to the other Government Departments in this respect? Would he not agree that there are thousands of these older public service pensioners who have been progressively impoverished for many years? Why should they be denied the assurance, at any rate, of benefiting from the review that is now being offered to younger officers, who are inside the National Insurance Scheme, and who, in any case, have the promise of codes of pensions far higher than those of the older men?
§ Mr. SandysI should always be happy to try to set a good example, subject to the approval and support of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. BevanWhat is the use of the right hon. Gentleman saying that one cannot take these cases separately from the others? Why should we not have a general statement of policy? Is it not the fact that the contract originally entered into has been falsified by events, and, therefore, should not the contract be renewed and refreshed in the light of those events? Why should we allow inflation, whoever may be responsible for it, to victimise individuals who made a contract with the State and who are now suffering the changed circumstances?
§ Mr. SandysI think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his premise. The contract is, of course, for the particular rate of pension which they are, in fact, receiving. The contract is not for a pension that will rise as the cost of living varies. That is not the contract. The contract is for a pension at a given rate. On the other hand, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been cases where the Government of the day have thought it necessary and right to make certain pension increases, but those have not been as a result of any contractual obligations but have been aimed at relieving hardship.
§ Mr. BevanMay I be allowed to follow this up? The contract is not for a figure of money but for a standard of living represented by the money. That is the real contract between the citizen and the State, and if the standard of living is eroded by inflation, ought not the contract itself to be reviewed?
§ Mr. SandysThe right hon. Gentleman is, of course, raising a very wide issue of principle, extending far beyond the question of Service pensions and pay, and I do not think that Question Time is the right occasion to deal with that large issue.
§ Mr. StracheyBut is not this case exactly on all fours with the previous one, in which the Minister has already agreed to a biennial review of Service pay for this very purpose—to bring it into line with the cost of living? If he accepts that, why deny it in the case of past pensioners?
§ Mr. SandysI do not think the right hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper or listened to the reply I made a moment ago. The purpose of the biennial review is not to relate pay and pensions to cost of living, but to ensure that what is being paid to the Service men is comparable with what they might hope to earn in civilian life.
§ Mr. LiptonIn view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.