HC Deb 26 June 1959 vol 607 cc1599-616

There shall be appointed not later than two years from the passing of this Act a committee of three persons of standing to consider and report to the Treasury what, if any, adjustments in the provisions of this Act should be made in the light of all relevant circumstances including movements of the Index of Retail Prices, wages and salaries in the Civil Service, local government, police, and the teaching profession.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

On the Second Reading of the Bill it was pointed out by more than one hon. Member that this is the sixth Bill of its kind in the last fifteen years. The last one was just over two years ago, in 1956, and it seemed obvious to many of us then that introducing these Bills in this way was a very ragged method of dealing with the matter and that there should be something in the way of substantial machinery set up which periodically and automatically could review the situation and, where necessary, jog the Treasury into action so that a new Bill could be introduced. Alternatively—I do not know whether it would be possible—an enabling Bill might be introduced which would permit the Treasury to act without necessarily coming to Parliament for specific powers to increase the scales.

I should have thought that, without my needing to argue the matter at any great length, it would be apparent to the Government, as it is to all on this side of the House, that something of this kind should be done. As I have said, Bills have been produced at intervals during the last fifteen years. There were only two, I believe, after the First World War because the cost of living went down with a bump then and there was enormous unemployment. This time the situation has been quite different. The cost of living has gone up steadily, and, although at the moment there is a pause and it has not altered very much, if at all, over the last eighteen months, we have no assurance that it will not presently begin to rise again.

The difficulty is that these pensioners, many of whom are living on very tiny pensions, have to wait sometimes two, three or four years for the Government of the day to recognise that the cost of living has changed and the value of money has declined. Meanwhile, they suffer great hardship, and, although something is done eventually to help them, more often than not it is too little, and for many of them it certainly comes too late.

In our Clause we suggest that something should be done to keep the matter, as it were, alive and that there should be someone whose job it is to watch the matter and ensure that as occasion arises the Government of the day, whatever their complexion, are informed and begin to move. We are not wedded to the form of words in our Clause. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has a different method of achieving the same object, we shall be delighted. It is the object that we are after, not this particular form of achieving it.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I agree with the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) when he says that to move a succession of pension increase Bills, as has been done since the war, is a clumsy and rather unsatisfactory method of dealing with the problem. No one would dispute that. If we felt that the need to do so would continue, I should be the first to agree that some permanent machinery would be extremely desirable to obviate the necessity.

At the same time, my objection to the proposed Clause is concerned with its actual wording. It seems to me to presuppose that one or both of two things will continue happening, either that there will be a continued rise in the cost of living or that there will be continued rises in the emoluments of public servants, and, presumably, everybody else in the country.

Taking the cost of living first, the right hon. Gentleman said that we have no assurance that the present stability would continue. Surely, if we write into Acts of Parliament at this moment Clauses presupposing that it may, we are to some extent reducing such assurances as we have. I feel that we should be careful at present not to put anything on the Statute Book which indicates that this Government or a subsequent Government have the slightest intention, if they can avoid it, of allowing the depreciation of the value of the currency to start again.

The second proposition, that to do with rising emoluments, raises a different problem. I would agree—I am not sure that my hon. and learned Friend would—that public service pensions, and, indeed, all pensions, should to some extent reflect any substantial change in the current rates of emoluments and any changes in current pensions. It is only right that in a period of rising prosperity and rising standard of living some of the benefits should be shared by the people who laid the foundations for it before they retired. I feel that very strongly.

My real reason for intervening is to repeat the plea which I made on Second Reading, that we ought the whole time to consider a third possibility—that rising prosperity will be reflected in falling prices. Surely that is the satisfactory solution to the problem. Surely that is the goal, however difficult of attainment it may seem to be, at which we should aim. That is the only way in which we can obviate the necessity for further pensions increases Acts, on the one hand, and at the same time benefit hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who are affected in precisely the same way and who are not public service pensioners.

1.30 p.m.

Therefore, I should be perfectly prepared for my hon. and learned Friend simply to give an assurance that in the event of changed circumstances necessitating—perhaps I ought to say justifying—a further increase in public service pensions, this matter will be kept under review. I am not sure, however, that such an assurance is altogether necessary. After all, if we look at the history, at least for the past five or six years, the Government have had a very good record, and this record in the matter of public service pensions is to some extent sufficient to raise doubts in my mind as to the necessity for a formal Clause being inserted in the Bill. I think it is a very open question.

I conclude by saying once again that we should be careful not to put on the Statute Book any Clause containing a form of words which implied that we assumed, either on the one hand that prices will go on rising indefinitely or, on the other hand, that the rising standard of living to which we all look forward can only be achieved by continued increases in emoluments.

Dame Irene Ward

I can see the force of the argument which has just been used by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). He gives a great deal of study to all these matters and always puts forward a very logical case. All I should say, however, is that perhaps he has not been quite so long in the House of Commons as to realise that people like myself catch at any straw in order to ensure that the kind of pressure which has had to be exerted to get this new Pensions (Increase) Bill on to the Statute Book should not have to continue. It really is most difficult, even if the Treasury Ministers were willing, to find a place in the legislative programme for some of the most just causes.

We are up against the eternal problem of finding an appropriate place in which to remedy injustices. I sometimes think this Parliamentary system of ours is not really carrying out the proper function of remedying grievances before Supply. Therefore, although I recognise the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend, I am delighted to have a small straw by which to try to ensure that in future we shall not have all the difficulties we have had in the past two years in bringing this new Pensions (Increase) Bill on to the Statute Book and to give me an opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend for doing what they have done in this Bill.

I can also understand the difficulty about the wording of the Clause. It involves certain matters which the Treasury has always resisted, and I think rightly resisted, but I observe in it the following words, which may perhaps be useful for my purpose: in the light of all relevant circumstances". I shall relate what I have to say to those few words. While we have been discussing the various Amendments this morning, the Committee has been engaged in probing a number of detailed difficulties. We have heard all sorts of arguments and received quite an amount of sympathy from my hon. and learned Friend. We have made some progress. Nevertheless, I think the House will agree that there are still anomalies which require examination. If we had this new Clause in the Bill, it would be much easier subsequently to exert pressure on the Government of the day to remedy anomalies. We have had undertakings, we have discussed anomalies and seen that in the Bill there are weaknesses as well as strength. If we had a Clause of this kind in, it would enable us to exert the pressure with an appropriate committee which is essential to see that all these anomalies are remedied.

I know I am not entitled to refer to the Armed Forces, but in one discussion my hon. and learned Friend asked for indulgence for a second, so I ask for a similar indulgence. I want to make a point about the position of the Armed Forces. The basic widow's pensions for Regular Officers' widows were not altered for 100 years. That has had a relation to many of the problems arising under the Bill. One of the difficulties has been to try to be fair to certain sections of the community who have fallen behind in this respect. There are other sections of the community inside the Bill whom it is always extremely difficult in our Parliamentary machine to find an opportunity to discuss so that we may redress their grievances.

Therefore, it seems that if we had a formal Clause of this kind in the Bill it would at any rate ensure that the committee could have under permanent consideration the difficulties of these people who have done remarkable service for many years in the interests of the country. We should then have a much more balanced approach. As I said when discussing one of the Amendments, not only has the future to be considered in relation to conditions of service and salaries and wages, but also the position of those who have enabled this country to survive, to increase the standard of living, and to weather many difficult economic storms.

My hon. and learned Friend is rightly always saying that in considering these matters we have also to consider the position of other taxpayers. I agree with him, and that is implicit in the Bill. I listened with interest to hon. Members talking about a perambulation in Trafalgar Square. I should like them to ask me to accompany them there. I should get an answer from almost anybody in Trafalgar Square which would be favourable to the point of view that I hold.

Mr. Houghton

I do not think the hon. Lady can come with me. I was only going as far as Parliament Square.

Dame Irene Ward

I should be delighted to go into Parliament Square, but I think I should like to go a little further. The hon. and learned Gentleman is always talking about the attitude of the taxpayers, and perhaps they are not as keen as they ought to be on doing their duty by Crown servants and public servants, but I have no objection to a reduction in the price of beer. Not that I am a consumer of it; I am not. I do not regard doing something for somebody else as being a sacrifice on my part, because if one looks over the whole field one sees that all get their share.

My hon. and learned Friend has not consulted me on what my attitude would be as a taxpayer. There are a lot of people on whom I would prefer to spend my share of Income Tax rather than those who have been chosen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not a very good argument to keep on discussing that point. It is necessary to protect the interest of the taxpayer, and I am delighted to know that I have a Conservative Government protecting my interests, but that argument can be carried too far. It might be a good idea if the three of us were to go off to Parliament Square and then find our way up to Trafalgar Square. I dare say we would then get a very balanced argument.

If the new Clause were added to the Bill it would keep the whole question of pensions under review. I can think of the colonial servants who are not covered as Crown pensioners. I think we could discuss them if we had this Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. Simon

My hon. Friend is not right about that. The new Clause would only permit consideration of adjustments in the provisions of the Act.

Dame Irene Ward

That might well be so, but if I happen to be one of the three members of the committee I will probably get in the bit that I want. That is the point. We could also include nurses and voluntary hospital staff, but I will not develop that argument because I shall be out of order if I do.

I should like to know that all these statements are in the OFFICIAL REPORT so that those who are interested in these things will see that they are there and find ways and means of persuading the Treasury of what is necessary to be done in fairness and justice. Though my hon. and learned Friend may say that the new Clause is open to certain objections, I hope that he will say that there ought to be some machinery by which we can keep this whole matter under review and give attention to these problems. It would be very much simpler if we could discuss the Royal Warrant with the Pensions (Increase) Bill. Everything is done in a sort of fragmentary way which is unsatisfactory to all those people whose interests we are trying to serve.

If my hon. and learned Friend will not agree to the new Clause, I hope that he will give some assurance that he will keep the matter well under review and will give us a Parliamentary opportunity, whether by Question or debate, to raise those issues in which we are all so interested.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Simon

I am in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). I am sure that what we should aim at is to see that the rising prosperity is reflected in a gentle fall in price level. Ultimately that is the only way in which we can ensure that the rising prosperity will be shared equitably among all classes of the community—the wage and salary earners, the pensioners, and those who are living on their savings. I find myself in complete sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member's approach to the problem.

I can only say to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that I should be delighted to accompany her to Parliament Square, where apparently the gallantry of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) stops, or to Trafalgar Square, or even beyond that.

We constantly have impressed on us, and I am sure that it is the overwhelming feeling in the country, that personal taxation is still too high, that rates are too high, and that both ought to be reduced. That is something that we have always to bear in mind.

As I ventured to point out in an intervention, the Amendment is limited to a report of what adjustments should be made in the provisions of the Act, and it would not extend to the matters with which my hon. Friend is concerned.

The Amendment is subject to three unacceptable consequences. First, it fixes a date on which public service pensions would be reviewed again. Secondly, it takes the review out of the hands of the Government. Thirdly, it requires factors to be taken into account which are inconsistent with the principle which has by and large commended itself to the House and the Committee, namely, that the Pensions (Increase) Acts are directed solely to the relief of hardship, albeit relative hardship.

May I deal with each in turn. It seems to me that the Amendment would merely concentrate pressures which are at present diffused, and create expectations of benefit which might well in the circumstances be disappointed. The Government and Parliament have to strike the sort of balance which has been in our minds throughout our discussions on the Bill. To fix a date when there should be a review would be making it far more difficult to strike a proper balance.

It is not as if we have not acted properly in this respect. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East is right when he says that the Government have a very good record. I ventured to point out, I hope in no acrimonious tone, that hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed the cost of living to rise by more than 28 per cent. without bringing in a fresh Pensions (Increase) Bill. Time and again we have been prompt to act, so we are entitled to say that our actions show that pensioners are in the forefront of our thoughts, and that we have recognised our special responsibilities for public service pensioners.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth asked me to assure her that machinery would exist for a review. It does exist. It exists in the Government itself, and it seems to me that the Government are in the best position to balance their responsibilities as employers and as revenue collectors. This holding of a balance, which the Government shares with Parliament, would be made more difficult if we had a specific time for review. Nor indeed would it necessarily be in the interests of the pensioners.

The second reason is really implicit in what I have said. The Amendment takes the review out of the hands of the Government. After the Cohen Committee's successes, I can understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite should want us to follow that example in this field, but it is not exactly comparable. What the Cohen Committee was set up to do, and did so successfully, was to see that information was laid before the public. It has been of great assistance in instructing public opinion. It was not designed to report to the Government. It made a report at large to the community. In this case we would not be ready to follow the example of the Cohen Committee.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly) indicated assent.

Mr. Simon

I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. It should be the Government who produce the review. It requires interests to be taken into account which are not directed solely to the relief even of relative hardship. If it were right to do that, it would be right for the Government to do it, and they could do it.

This is not an acceptable proposal. The Government's record shows that they are alive to the problem with which the Bill deals. The Government can be proud of their record, and the public service pensioners can feel confident that they will be fairly dealt with if the review continues to be within the machinery of Government.

Mr. Houghton

That is a very disappointing reply. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), and I appreciate his point of view. I respect it all the more because I know that he is very sympathetic towards the purpose of the Bill and would probably carry his own wishes beyond its scope. I know that, in company with some of his hon. Friends, he has given a great deal of time to a study of this question.

To follow him would take me into the field of economic forecast or economic and political theory. The new Clause is not based upon the expectation that the cost of living will rise in future as much as it has done in the past. It is based in part upon the need for a safeguard against that possibility and in part upon the likelihood that money incomes will rise with the expansion of the economy and the rise of national prosperity. In other connections estimates have been made that wages and salaries may rise by 2 per cent. per annum, on the average. That suggests that those who are studying the matter carefully expect money incomes to rise even though prices may fall, but there is no evidence elsewhere in the world of stable or static money incomes in conditions of rising national income and expanding national prosperity. I allude in that connection more particularly to the United States of America.

The rise in pensions and National Insurance has brought forward proposals related directly to the Government's desire that National Assistance recipients shall have a share in the rising national prosperity. My right hon. Friend did not base his proposals upon the cost of living, but I do not think that it is out of keeping with reasonable treatment of the matter under discussion that that aspect of the matter should be borne in mind. I take full responsibility for any misjudgment in drafting the Clause. I can see that it would have been made a little easier for the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and for the hon. and learned Member if the new Clause had stopped at the words "all relevant circumstances" and allowed the rest to be taken for granted.

I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that this is striking another blow for the principle of parity which is becoming more and more scorned by the hon. and learned Member as our debates go on, but it was an attempt to find some way of dealing with this matter in future, without waiting—as the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said—for fresh agitations to begin. There is no recognised machinery for the consideration of these matters of pensions increases. They go beyond the scope of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, and even within that Council questions involving legislation are under a special disadvantage in the matter of free discussion and negotiation. It is unsatisfactory merely to wait for the next pressure to start coming from different quarters.

I do not suggest that this is a move to take pensions increases out of politics, because they have never been very much in politics, and the Bill has probably been the least contentious and most pleasant of all which have dealt with this matter. The Government are to be commended for having produced a Bill which has enabled our discussions to take place in this sort of atmosphere. In Punch recently I saw a very amusing feature, written by Mr. Christopher Hollis—at one time a very respected Member of this House—consisting of fictitious letters from various people suggesting that various things should be taken out of politics. They included foreign policy, the bomb, social security—and probably pensions increases, although I do not quite remember that—and half a dozen other subjects which might be contentious. In the end there was nothing left in politics.

Mr. Simon

The hon. Member must not disappoint his right hon. Friend, because there is still the Chevening Estate Bill to come.

Mr. Houghton

Then the political millennium is postponed for a little longer.

The hon. and learned Member made some objections to the Clause, and I understand his point of view. I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Tynemouth for demolishing the hypothetical taxpayer. She rightly and properly claimed to be a taxpayer herself. As she spoke I thought I heard the authentic voice of the taxpayer—and by that I mean the taxpayer who is nothing like as mean-spirited as successive Governments make out when they call him to their aid in order to oppose something which is reasonable in itself but perhaps imposed an additional burden on the Exchequer.

The hon. and learned Member said, first, that to fix a date of review would raise expectations, which might not be to the advantage of those concerned and would certainly be an embarrassment to the Government. There is something in that, but even if we could not fix a precise date the Government could have been a little more forthcoming about keeping the matter before them with a view to obviating the kind of experience that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have gone through in recent months. Representations have been made to the Government, and the reply has been, "No, there is no case for it". Then, after further representations, once more the reply has been, "No, there is no case for it"—and then, out the blue, an announcement has come from the Chancellor at the time of the Budget.

2.0 p.m.

The hon. and learned Gentleman also complained that this would take the matter out of the hands of the Government. The new Clause provides that this committee of persons of standing should report to the Treasury, and that is taking the matter out of the hands of the Government. Committees of all kinds have been appointed at various times to advise the Government. The Cohen Committee has been referred to, but that was not to advise the Government but to advise the public, or, if we like, to defend the Government against the public. I do not know what it was intended to do. Again, the Coleraine Committee is advising the Government on matters relating to the salaries of the higher civil servants, because we realise that this is outside the scope of negotiations on the Whitley body and is a matter on which the Government need the help of independent advice from persons holding established public positions. There have been Royal Commissions and advisory committees of all sorts and kinds, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman rather pulled that argument into his speech by the scruff of the neck.

Finally, he referred to factors which the Government might find difficult to accept as part of the instruction to undertake a review. I would be willing to echo the hon. and learned Gentleman in that respect if that would make things any easier for him, but my right hon. Friend did not move this new Clause in the expectation that the Government would be able to accept it in its literal terms. I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that the machinery for discussing these matters does not exist in the same form as in the case of the discussion of wages and salaries and conditions of service relating to all forms of public service, where our Whitley system is probably as satisfactory a method of joint consultation and negotiation in the public sector as there is anywhere in the world, and is probably more effective and more satisfactory than many systems of joint consultation in outside industry.

But because pensions require legislation, there are obvious handicaps put upon freedom of discussion, and cer- tainly upon negotiations, through the normal channels of the Whitley Council. Moreover, there is not only one Whitley Council but several, and these cover a widening field of the public service, quite apart from the Armed Forces. I have pleaded on a number of occasions for legislation enabling matters to be discussed in the way in which other conditions of service are discussed.

There may be all sorts of traditional and constitutional reasons against that, but I am sorry that the Financial Secretary has not felt able to promise the House that he will ensure that, as far as it lies in the power of the present Government—and it may be outside their power before long; one does not know, but can understand that he cannot promise anything with certainty beyond the end of next month—so far as it lies in their power, this question will be reviewed at no distant date and in an appropriate fashion to the times as they then are, and without waiting to be pressed, pushed and agitated by civil servants on pension and retired public servants generally, and, of course, under their influence and advice, by hon. and right hon. Members of this House. It would be very much better if he could find a different way from the one which has been followed in connection with all this pension increase legislation for the last 15 years.

Cannot the hon. and learned Gentleman respond to that in terms which will satisfy the House, and would enable my right hon. Friend to withdraw this new Clause? It would be an assurance, but it would not be a commitment, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman can go a little further and be more specific about it than he was in his speech, which was in such general terms as to suggest: "Big Brother will look after you. His record is good enough for you. Has he not done this and that? You need not fear the future." The truth is that we would not have had the Bill which is before the House at the moment had not the agitation which I want to obviate been brought to bear on hon. Members on both sides of this House and on the Treasury directly.

Question put, and negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Glenvil Hall rose—

2.5 p.m.

Mr. Simon

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is I who ought to move the Third Reading rather than the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

This gives me the opportunity of thanking the House, the Standing Committee and the Committee of the whole Mouse which has dealt with this matter for the very agreeable and constructive manner and atmosphere in which its provisions have been discussed.

We have had a considerable number of experts who have helped us very much, particularly upstairs. I think the provisions of the Bill were scrutinised in great detail to see if they could be improved, and I think it is a tribute to the strength of the scheme, particularly when it is a simple scheme in a matter of great complexity, that none of the Amendments which were put forward have been divided upon. We have made one Amendment to the Bill which will undoubtedly be an improvement and will lead to considerable improvements in its repercussions outside the Bill. It is fair to claim that the provisions of the Bill have stood up to close and informed scrutiny in a very satisfactory way.

I need hardly say what a pleasure it has been to me to have had the responsibility for this Bill after its Second Reading, or how grateful I am to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who himself knows the difficulties of the problem, and to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who in another capacity has lived with it so closely for so many years, to have had their assistance and for the pleasant, agreeable and kindly way in which they have treated my own duty in this matter. I am also most grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), even though she came in only at a late stage of the Bill, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and to all other hon. Members who have helped from this side of the House.

Quite apart from its simplicity, the Bill has a number of improvements over any previous Bill. The cost of living has risen less than before any previous Pensions (Increase) Bill, and the increases now proposed in the Bill go closer than on previous occasions to reinstating the value of the pensions after it has been eroded by rising prices. Without conceding the general principle of parity, we have gone very close to reinstatement in certain respects.

Thirdly, the percentage increase that is given is not, as heretofore, on the basic pension, but is on the pension as increased, so that in that very simple way, unlike all previous pension legislation, we have managed to load the scheme in favour of the small and the old pension. Fourthly, which is generally, indeed I think universally, commended, there is no upper limit to the new increase payable. Fifthly, there is no earlier cut-off date in respect of the higher pensions. And, lastly, and I think this has gained the approval of the House, particularly as it has been closely examined, it is simple and intelligible. This is of great assistance not only in enabling us to conduct our deliberations so speedily, but will be, and indeed already has been, of great assistance to those concerned on the pensioners' side in scrutinising its provisions.

It is only about three weeks today since my right hon. Friend rose to move the Second Reading of the Bill, and that seems to me to be a remarkable tribute to the way in which the House and the Committee have dealt with its provisions. The combined effect of this Bill and the previous Acts will give a solid measure of improvement to many public service pensioners, whose position is, I know, of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It will bring benefit to some hundreds of thousands of former public servants, and I do not doubt that it will be dealt with in another place with equal expedition. If that is so, there is every likelihood that the operative date of the Bill will be 1st August. I need hardly say that it will take a little time for the pensions of the 400,000 people affected to be revised, but I would like to assure the House that, as far as the Government are concerned, every effort will be made to ensure that pensioners do not wait longer than is necessary.

I wish once again to thank the House for the speed and pleasant manner in which it has dealt with the Bill and to commend the Bill to the House.

2.11 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I am sorry that I appeared to be usurping the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary and to be moving the Motion. I was under the impression that the hon. and learned Gentleman had just nodded and moved the Third Reading formally, and that, therefore, if anything had to be said, one had to move fairly swiftly. I do not intend to say a great deal, because there is very little one can say that has not already been said. That was one reason why I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was merely nodding and moving the Third Reading formally.

Practically no change whatever has been made to the Bill either in Committee or today and, therefore, the arguments that could be used on Third Reading have already been used. However, I wish to say that we on this side of the House, although grateful for what the Bill does, are keenly disappointed that the suggestions for its improvement made from both sides in Committee upstairs were not accepted, or at any rate that some of them, which in our view were extremely reasonable, were not accepted.

I cannot forget that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself said that the average Civil Service pension is still no more than £200 despite the increases that have already been added. In these days when £200, unfortunately, does not go very far, that is something which we cannot contemplate with any degree of pleasure. Hon. Members on both sides of the House thought that the Bill was an opportunity to make somewhat better provision for these people.

We on this side of the House remember, too, that the drop in the value of money since October, 1951—the basis, largely, for the Bill and the increases given—is no less than 25 per cent., whereas the highest percentage increase which anyone who retired before 31st March, 1952, can get is only 12 per cent. As was pointed out in Committee by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), there are many pensioners who retired well before 1952, in 1939 and 1940, who, in spite of the Bill and the changes which it makes, will suffer great hardship.

I was rather sorry to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that he hoped to make the increase operative by 1st August. I take it that even if the figures take some working out, as they probably will, the increase will be operative from 1st August. We have had four previous Pensions (Increase) Measures since the war, three of which backdated the increase—in one case for at least five months. Here we are putting it forward to 1st August, I hope.

Although in Committee we tried hard to backdate the increase as in the case of the previous Measures and were unsuccessful, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not now go back on what we thought was a pretty hard and fast date for the inception of the increase, namely, 1st August.

As I say, we are very disappointed that between us we have not been able to do more to improve the Bill. We accept it for what it is, as, I am sure, will the pensioners who are to gain under its provisions. But in spite of what the hon. and learned Gentleman and others said in Committee, it seems to me that it will not be long before we have another Measure of the same kind, and when that happens I hope that we shall be more generous to these people than we have been in this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.