HC Deb 09 March 1964 vol 691 cc98-103

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sure, not exceeding £35,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Paget

During the debate on the Estimates I made the point that we shall not get recruits from Service families while the older members of the families are left with a sense of grievance about their pensions, and, in many instances, in a state of penury. I suggested then, and committed myself to the proposition, that we should have the same pay and pensions—and, of course, by pensions I include half-pay—for the same service regardless of when that service terminated. That is to say, all pensions should be paid on the basis of what would have been paid had the pensioner retired at the time of the introduction of the latest rate. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary has available now precise figures of the cost of this proposition. He may have them, as I raised the matter in a previous debate. If not, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Kirk

I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman the figure of £75 million across the whole field. I think I am right in saying that the total for the Armed Services is about £12 million.

Mr. Paget

My other point refers to a much smaller figure, that relating to the Polish ex-Service men. I see that that figure has been increased from £50,000 to £75,000, through the British Legion, but from talks which I have had with these old gentlemen I do not think that we are dealing with the matter in the right way. What they want—it is a tremendous feeling of sentiment—is that their service should be recognised and they should receive a military pension. A start could be made at age 60, or age 65, and they could receive a pension, as they would have had if their service had been with the British Army. I have looked at the figure of the difference between what they would receive on this basis and what they receive from National Assistance and it is extraordinarily small. But the receipt of a pension would have an immense effect on their morale, and I hope that this matter will be looked at seriously.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the question of pensions for Polish ex-Service men. Anyone who knows of their service in the last war will have a great sympathy for them. I know that some of these men have re-established themselves extremely successfully, but there are hard cases. I am glad to note that the provision for them has been increased by £25,000 but I wonder whether that is sufficient to deal with all the hard cases. These men are getting older. Their circumstances were always difficult. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell the Committee how far this increase will meet the need of the hard cases. Many hon. Members have sympathy for the Polish officers and men.

Sir H. Harrison

I am glad that the Committee is having this short debate on pensions. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the increase in these pensions represents only 1½ per cent. over the figure for the previous year. The amount spent in respect of the Regular Army is 9 per cent. and of the Territorial Army 3½ per cent. These men, who have given good service, get the least. I endorse what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) about the importance of older members of a family—who served at a time when the rate of pay was not as high as it is today— receiving an adequate pension. Members of families with a tradition of service, whether officers or other ranks, should have the feeling that they are getting a fair deal.

I pay tribute to the great work done by the Officers' Pension Society, which alerts Members of Parliament. I should like my hon. Friend to consider, with the members of the Army Council, the thought that many high-ranking officers—though they fight battles with the Treasury and with other authorities on behalf of the troops under their command—are apt to forget those whose service has been completed. It is not entirely due to the politicians that some pensions have lagged behind in amount. Some of this responsibility must rest with high-ranking officers who appreciate the difficulty only when they have left the Service. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the needs of retired officers, and also of the widows of former officers, as their difficulties are often much greater.

Mr. Lipton

I wish to plead that the War Office and the Service Departments should face the need to reduce the number of pension scales which cause the amount of a pension to depend on when the Service man left the Service, or on the date when he died. It would be an act of justice if that were done, and many of the hardships would be removed if we had only two or three pension scales.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

Why not one?

Mr. Lipton

There may be some difficulty in establishing only one rate of pension, although I do not know what it may be. I should be satisfied if the numerous pension rates were reduced to the lowest possible number and the lowest pension gradually brought up to the rate of pension enjoyed by those people who are now leaving the Service.

Dr. Alan Glyn

This is a thorny problem but there does not seem to be much difference between the point of view of hon. Members on either side of the Committee. The real problem is, how much are we prepared to spend in order to see that justice is done? My hon. Friend referred to an "across the board" figure. But I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that Service people are in a different category. They have risked their lives and spent a great deal of their Service career abroad, and I think that there is a case for regarding them as being in a different category from other pensioners.

Let us have one category for a person who has attained a certain rank and become entitled to a certain pension. When that pension is increased, all the pensions in that category should be increased. Equally, apart from the question of equity, we must look at this matter in a realistic way in order that justice may be done to a small section of the community and to show that we genuinely intend that benefits shall be equal for those who have served in the past as well as those who will serve in the future. Service men leave the Service under rather different circumstances from those that obtain in the case of civil servants who retire. I do not think that were this awful doctrine of immutability accepted by their side—I may be anticipating what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has in mind——

Mr. Paget

The tremendous difference is that a Service man retires so much earlier than a civil servant and that by the time he gets his pension it will have depreciated considerably.

Dr. Glyn

I had not anticipated quite all that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton had in mind.

I know that my hon. Friend cannot commit himself today because this is an important matter of policy, but I hope that he will accept the view of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and convey it to the appropriate quarter, to see whether some thing may be done in the near future.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

This Vote deals with terminal grants and gratuities. I am not sure whether it applies to the Royal Ordnance factories. It is stated on page 125 of the Estimates that: This Vote provides for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories; some expenditure on common services is, however, borne on Army Votes". I should like to know whether gratuities and terminal grants are borne on any of the Army Votes with which we are now dealing or whether I must wait until we come to the Royal Ordnance factory Vote before raising this point. I do not want to miss my opportunity of raising it, because it comes directly under the Army's jurisdiction in day-to-day operations.

Mr. Kirk

I think that I am right in saying that this is solely for the fighting Services. The point which the hon. Member wishes to raise comes under the Royal Ordnance factory Estimate.

Mr. Manuel

What does the statement on page 125 mean— This Vote provides for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories; some expenditure on common services is, however, borne on Army Votes"?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston)

We had better discuss that when we discuss the Royal Ordnance factories.

Mr. Kirk

I should like to say a word or two on pensions. We discussed this matter last Thursday. I said—and I must hold to this view—that I did not think that it would be possible to isolate Service pensions from public service pensions generally. It is perfectly true that if we could confine this to the Services it would cost only £12 million—I say "only", but it is still quite a sizeable sum—of which about £8 million would be for the Army, but I doubt very much whether it could be done. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) may say that he can distinguish in principle between them. I dare say that he is right, but I doubt whether the same view would be taken by other public service pensioners. The pressure for an increase on their behalf would be extremely strong and we would then be faced the higher figure—which I believe would be the true one—of £75 million, which is a great deal of money.

I think tact we must, therefore, fall back on trying to improve the situation gradually through the pensions increase Measures. As I said last Thursday, the last one—the sixth since the war—was the first which tried to make an advance. Instead of trying to catch up, it tried to get slightly ahead of the situation. It probably did not go very far, but I feel that we are trying to make a limited compromise between the two opposing theories of immutability and parity. I do not think that I could go much beyond that today.

Perhaps I could look at the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) about Polish ex-Service men and write to him.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £35,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.