HC Deb 01 December 1965 vol 721 cc1562-78

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Ridley

As I was saying, there is a difficulty with overseas officers who are British citizens. The distinction has been drawn, and quite correctly according to the legal interpretation between a man who is born in the United Kingdom and serves as an overseas officer abroad and a man who is born in overseas territory and is brought up and serves there and at a later stage retires to live in the United Kingdom. This distinction is quite artificial. It is purely the accident of where a man is born.

One could take two perfectly normal British families. One has had children and brought them up in the United Kingdom and later one of the children is recruited into the overseas service and eventually he is eligible for the supplement. Another family may happen to have been sojourning in a Commonwealth country and a child is born and brought up for a few years in that country, but when, after distinguished overseas service, he comes to retire he finds that he is not eligible for supplement even though he is resident in the United Kingdom. Surely it is not the circumstances of a man's birth but of his retirement that should determine this. If a man retires in the United Kingdom, he should be eligible for the supplement which the Bill provides.

I am not suggesting that all such officers should be eligible to receive the supplements in successive pension Bills. That is not the object. The intention of the Amendment is that those who retire to live in this country should be eligible, whereas those who retire not to live in this country should not be eligible.

The Amendment seeks to put right this anomaly. If the Parliamentary Secretary for Overseas Development feels that this is a new departure, I must tell him that there is a precedent in the Government's own Bill for making a distinction between a person who is resident in the United Kingdom and the person who is not. In subsection (5,a(i)), of the very Clause which I seek to amend, there is a distinction drawn between the pensioner resident in the United Kingdom and the one who is not. The hon. Gentleman therefore will not be able to argue that this is a new departure in pension legislation.

Mr. J. T. Price

In advancing this argument, will the hon. Member take into consideration that British citizens permanently expatriate from this country who have decided for good reasons to live in a foreign country, or in an overseas territory of the British Commonwealth, after two years' absence from this country are no longer liable to United Kingdom taxation? I suggest, therefore, that this is one of the very good reasons why this exclusion is made. They may be in territory where there is practically no taxation at all.

Mr. Ridley

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. I am talking about servants of the Crown who come back to live in this country and who pay United Kingdom Income Tax on their incomes. If we have power in this House to put up the rates of Income Tax, as he and his right hon. Friends have done, we must surely have power to put up the rates of pension to cover the inflation which his wretched Government have caused.

To return to my argument, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what the cost of adopting the Amendment would be. My impression is that it would be very small and that very few people would be concerned. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us the number of officers involved. But, whatever the answer to that question may be, I hope that he will accept the Amendment because it is not fair to draw this distinction between those who have the misfortune to have been born and brought up in a different part of the world but who suffer the same hardship from inflation when they come to retire here and those fortunate enough, by the circumstances of their birth, to be protected by such Measures as this.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram)

I should first point out to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that for the purpose of achieving his object the Amendment has a drafting weakness. I do not rest my case on a drafting weakness. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I propose to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment on other grounds, but I think that it will be helpful if I explain what I regard as the weakness.

The Amendment refers to "overseas officer", and this, in the context of the 1962 Act, means an overseas officer in relation to the territory from which the pension is derived. Therefore, the Amendment would not extend the scope of the Bill at all, because overseas officers so defined are already covered by the provisions of the original Act and would be covered by this amending Bill.

The hon. Gentleman has explained his purpose and, as he said, we have been in correspondence about a particular case in his constituency. He seeks to cover certain pensioners of overseas Governments who were, as he rightly said, locally recruited officers and, more than that, officers indigenous to the overseas territory, that is, people who were born in the overseas territory or domiciled there, who served in that overseas territory and who then, upon retirement, have chosen to come to live in this country. He bases his case on the fact that they are now living here and should therefore, so he argues, benefit from the increases.

This is quite contrary, as, I think, the hon. Gentleman himself admitted, to the principles upon which these pensions matters were intended to be administered and have been administered in the past. The British Government have always accepted responsibility in respect of supplements for those who were recruited to serve Colonial Governments under arrangements for which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been responsible. This means expatriate officers. It does not mean, never has meant and never was intended to mean pensioners of purely local origin. We feel firmly that this distinction between expatriates and local officers is a right one which the House would be well advised to maintain.

The hon. Gentleman advanced the point—he said he was quoting from a letter which I had sent him—that local officers must expect to follow the fortunes of their own country and receive pensions and pension increases which their own Government are prepared to grant to them, and that if they decide to live elsewhere, in this country or anywhere else, they must accept their responsibility for it. What is at issue here is not the circumstances in which they choose to live, but whose responsibility it is for paying the pensions or for increasing the pension in relation to new circumstances. In the case of the category of pensioners which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the responsibility is that not of the British Government but of the overseas Government. Therefore, I advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the matter deeply enough. He says that one should follow the fortunes of one's own country. That envisages that everyone has a country of origin and is always going to be there, that their ancestors have always done so and that they themselves intend to stay there all the time. But during the last 10 years we have seen a great many changes, and some rather remarkable ones, and all of us must have constituents who find that they are nationals of countries to which sometimes they have hardly ever been. I believe that it is arguable that I am an Egyptian, because I was certainly born in Egypt. I believe that it could be argued that unless I had taken proper steps which I have taken, to ensure that I was not an Egyptian, I might now be one—and perhaps I shall be again one of these days.

I had a letter last week from an Englishman constituent of mine who lives in South Africa, and he has just discovered to his surprise that he is a Maltese because he happened to be born in Malta when his parents were briefly stationed there. In those circumstances, it really does not reflect the changes which have taken place in the British Commonwealth to say that if a locally enlisted person chooses to live in this country, which is not, after all, his own country, he cannot accept an increase of pension. He has accepted the obligations to pay tax here. He may come of entirely British stock, but have this incidental and for-the-time-being nationality—which in some cases can be changed—and find himself in an equivocal position.

There must be very many families in this country which finds themselves in this position. As they are in every respect similar to colleagues who worked in the service side by side, did exactly the same service, put in the same number of years and received the same pay, I think that the Government ought now to accept that as they are living here and have the obligation to pay tax here they should also have the right to receive the increment.

Mr. Ridley

The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question about the cost of granting the concessions. He has not told us the number of people concerned. He said he would not base his answer on the drafting error which I freely admit is in my Amendment, and I am glad that that is not the issue between us. The hon. Gentleman then went on to extend no convincing reason as to why the point of principle I raised was not acceptable to the Government. The Committee has not been given a proper answer. He should supply an answer to the major point about cost that I put to him and on which he has not attempted to satisfy the Committee, the country at large and those concerned.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Oram

I am sorry that I omitted to reply to the point about cost. I have not the information here and I suspect that it would be next to impossible to find out the cost that would be involved. We do not know how many people who receive pensions from other Governments and are not the responsibility of this Government are living here or what their circumstances are. I doubt whether the information could be readily available but if it can be obtained without disproportionate effort I will get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) raised a rather different argument which I am sure, on reflection, he will realise is not a proper principle upon which to operate pension payments. He referred to people of British stock. To start legislating in terms of pensions according to race or stock rather than by the clearly laid down principles accepted by previous Governments as well as this one would be difficult and undesirable.

Mr. Kershaw

But it is not a question of "stock". The hon. Gentleman says, in effect, that if these people choose to live here they must accept a certain penalty. But they do not live here because they have some vicious idea in mind but because their families have always lived here and they have been brought up here and therefore it is natural for them to live here, despite the accident of birth.

Mr. Oram

But how would they be distinguished from anyone who was a locally recruited officer overseas? It would open the door to every possible person overseas who decided to come here to live being subject to pensions increases at the responsibility of the British taxpayer. This is a path along which it would not be wise to proceed.

Mr. Ridley

The Parliamentary Secretary does not know how many people would be involved, so how does he know that this would open the door to a flood of them coming here? I suspect that only a few hundred people are involved. If he knows no more about this subject than he has shown tonight, I hope that he will move to report progress to consider this matter before we proceed further with the Bill.

Mr. Henry Clark (Antrim, North)

The Parliamentary Secretary is a man for whom the Committee can have considerable pity, for he is a man who is dealing with a situation which has been built up by a series of precedents and traditions over several hundred years. He is trying to cut through all that and produce a law which is basically equitable and just. But in this Clause he has miserably failed to do so. He is in exactly the position of a man who says, "I cannot describe an elephant, but I know one when I see one".

There is all the difference in the world between an officer of British stock who had every intention of returning to this country on retirement, although he may have been born in Kashmir or Egypt or Timbuctoo, and, to use an old-fashioned phrase, a native officer recruited locally who throughout his service considered that he would probably return to the country where he was first employed. The Parliamentary Secretary and his draftsmen have had considerable difficulty finding an equitable differentiation between the two.

But their time and patience have been wasted, because a man who has served Her Majesty is entitled to a pension according to the country where he may have to live. If one had served Her Majesty as an overseas officer—although "overseas officer" is a modern definition—it was always assumed that on retirement one would come to this country and live here and one's pension was calculated on that basis and the previous Acts, weak though they were, made their calculations on that basis. A native officer, locally recruited to the service, had his pension and other rights calculated on the basis that he would retire to the country in which he was born and where he had served. However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule and that is exactly where the Government have failed.

The Government have failed to find a solution to the problem of drafting a provision for the officer whose mother was born in Kashmir and whose father was born in Cawnpore and whose grandfather was born in Egypt and whose great grandfather was born in Malta and who has no right to a British passport, but who is still a British officer—and there are hundreds throughout the country—and who to all intents and purposes is recognised by any ordinary man as a subject of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth. I doubt whether any differentiation is necessary in such a case.

If he and his father and grandfather and other ancestors have served in Tanganyika, the overseas country I know best, and the officer in question happens to find that Tanganyika is now an unpleasant place in which to live and feels that the United Kingdom will suit his feelings better, and if he has served Her Majesty in exactly the same way as the man whose ancestors were born in Cawnpore, is it worth trying to find a definition between the two? The Bill certainly does not provide a clear distinction between any such officer who decides to retire to the United Kingdom and the officer who has become an overseas officer and loyally served Her Majesty overseas and then decided to retire to Cheltenham.

The number of native officers retiring to this country is comparatively few and the cost of this proposal to the Treasury would be extraordinarily small, and yet the hardship suffered by officers who cannot prove that they are full United Kingdom officers but who are recruited locally, although to all intents and purposes they are of British stock, is considerable.

I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is suffering under the pressure of Parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants. If he had any guts he would cut the cackle and would say that those people who served Her Majesty's Government loyally in our overseas territories, and who are now living in this country are entitled to a pension which would stand up to the steadily increasing cost of living which we are suffering under a Labour Government.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 35, to leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd)

I think it would be convenient if we also took Amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 42, at end insert: 7. A pension in respect of service under a local authority or other statutory body in any overseas territory, which service was by the provisions of any law, deemed to be "other public service" for the purposes of any law for the grant of pensions to persons serving under the Government of such territory.

Mr. Turton

This is a paving Amendment for the insertion of the new paragraph in Amendment No. 9. The pensioners who are covered by this Amend- ment are those who were recruited either through the Colonial Office or the Crown Agents for service under local authorities or statutory bodies in the Colonies. The majority of them served in the West Coast of Africa and they were specifically excluded from any municipal superannuation scheme. It was specially provided under the laws of the Colony that they should be pensioned under the same laws and on the same terms as those applying to Government officers. For this purpose the law also provided that the local authority service was "other public service" under the pension laws, thus facilitating transferability to and from Government service.

It was specifically laid down that these people should be treated for pension purposes on a complete parallel with Government officers. Now, under the Pension Increases Acts those who were in the Government service overseas are entitled to the increases under this Act of 2 per cent. to 16 per cent., but these local government officers are completely excluded from any increase, save for certain groups. The exceptions are those who were recruited before 1st April, 1930, for service in Achimota College. They are brought into the Pensions (Increase) Bill. But those who were recruited on and after 2nd April, 1930, are excluded.

In addition, under this Bill those who were members of an auxiliary or special police force are now being brought in. I suggest to the Committee that this is a manifest injustice to these others. There are not many and the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt have the figures. I know them fairly accurately. There are six from Lagos Town Council, two from Kumassi Town Council, and a certain number from Takoradi. The numbers and the amount are not great but the injustice to these people is tremendous.

The Parliamentary Secretary may say that this is not our responsibility, that the local government officers in England are covered by this Bill, and the responsibility is that of local government. If he were to say that here the responsibility is not that of the British Government but of the local government overseas, to pay this increase, he is in this difficulty. Under the terms of their recruitment they are subject to the same pension laws and conditions as a Government officer.

When, under the Pensions (Increase) Act, Nigeria and Ghana were told that the British Government would be responsible for the increase in pensions, they were freed from the liability to pay the increase to the whole group of those who were on like pension terms, both Government and local government servants. It is, therefore, not possible to argue that Nigeria or Ghana should pay this increase. The Pensions (Increase) Act removed this liability from them, because these people were recruited by the Crown Agents and the Colonial Office under the specific condition that they would be treated under the same terms. This is the difficulty, and this is why these most unfortunate people have been subsisting without any increase at all in their pensions.

10.30 p.m.

It is hard enough for them, but it is very much harder for the widows. Of those of whom I have spoken are a number of widows whose husbands served on the Lagos Town Council. During their lifetime these men contributed specifically for pensions for their widows, on the understanding that their widows would be treated on the same basis as the widows of Government servants. Now we find that as a result of this anomaly in the Act the widows of local government officers have had no increase at all, whereas the widows of Government officers have had an increase.

Although this is not a matter which involves a large number of people, it is an anomaly that we should correct. The amount involved is probably not more than £50,000, in the judgment of those for whom I speak. I do not, therefore, think that it would put a great burden on this country to remedy this admitted injustice.

The previous Government said—and I am sure that the present Government accept this responsibility—that if Ghana, or Nigeria, or any other country, repudiated liability for the payment of pensions they would honour the pension rights of overseas pensioners, but these local government servants, recruited under the same terms and conditions as Government officers, are not covered by the Pensions (Increase) Act. Therefore, if an overseas Government were to repudiate their liability to pay pensions, there would be no remedy for these wretched pensioners or their widows. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that by remedying this injustice he will give these people the security which they so urgently need. I hope that the Government will look with favour on this small but very necessary Amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Dean

I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said, and I rise to speak on behalf of one other category of people who also feel a great sense of injustice at the moment. I am referring to the staff at the University College of Freetown, Sierra Leone, who were appointed under the 1950 Ordinance. They feel that they have been badly misled by the British Government with regard to their pension position.

The main point, as they put it is me, is that in Ordinances 1 and 2 of 1950, and also in the Widows and Orphans Pension Ordinance, the Secretary of State went out of his way to say that the staff at the University College would be treated like other public servants. They were told that they would be deemed to be in the public service, and they were obliged to join the pension scheme and the widows' and orphans' scheme.

Many of them relied on this and did not join the United Kingdom National Insurance Scheme, because they felt that they were adequately covered. But they now find that they have not the same pension rights as other public servants and that the Pensions (Increase) Acts do not apply to them. I gave notice to the Financial Secretary that I intended to raise this point and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to deal with this comparatively small number of people who also labour under a sense of injustice in this matter.

Mr. Oram

The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), as we would expect, argued his case with great persuasiveness, and pointed to the relative injustice to people on one side of the demarcation line by comparison with those on the other. He will recognise that it is a familiar argument in all spheres of public administration that wherever we draw the line, or set a date, there are those who are unfortunate and about whom many speeches of pathos can be made.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to determine where the line should be drawn according to proper principles. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's speech did not attempt to attack—it certainly did not undermine—the central principle underlying the 1962 Act, which is that pensions increases apply to those pensioners who have been in Crown service, and that this is the vital distinction which we maintain, as against the proposal in his Amendment that people other than those in Crown service should get the benefit of these increases.

This principle has been maintained by successive Secretaries of State, not only in relation to pension matters but in other matters such as compensation, and when they have been urged to intervene in respect of other terms of service it has consistently been argued that the essential distinction that must be drawn is between those who are in Crown service and those who are not. It is for that reason that I am not able to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's plea to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Tinton

I want to be clear on the point that the hon. Member has made. The Bill deals with those employed not only by the Crown but by local government. In fact, the very Clause which I was seeking to amend deals with people who have not been employed by the Crown but employed by Achimota College and by many local authorities and other authorities, and who are not Crown servants. I am not clear about the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Oram

In relation to Achimota College we have maintained exactly the principle that I am referring to about Crown service. It is the very reason for that unfortunate date in 1930 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Those who were appointed previously to that date were in Crown service and those who were appointed after it were not. So the distinction there, unfortunate though it is in respect of those pensioners who happen to have been appointed to the same college after 1930, is one which we have thought it proper and highly important to maintain.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that only a few people are con- cerned. He would be right in maintaining that, in local government terms. However, I would point out that once this principle is breached, others apply. It is not a question simply of local authority employees but of employees of other statutory bodies. Once this has been embarked upon, the repercussions are considerable and the expense is very great indeed. This is another reason why we insist that it is proper to maintain the distinction between Crown service and other service.

The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) raised the question of the staff of Fourah Bay College in Sierra Leone, and I acknowledge his courtesy in letting us know that he would raise this point. He will know that we have had considerable correspondence—whether with him or not I do not know, but certainly with others—on this point, and I must insist that the position of this group of people is quite clear that in relation to the principle of Crown service which I have explained. The Fourah Bay staff are not covered by the 1962 Act, because they are not employees of the Sierra Leone Government and are not in the service of the Crown.

It is true, that from the point of view of calculating their pensions, they are treated as public officers for Sierra Leone pensions purposes, but that does not grant them the right to supplementation other than such supplements as arise out of decisions by the Sierra Leone Government itself. It does not entitled them to benefit under the provisions of successive Pensions (Increase) Acts in this country.

For these reasons, once again I have to advise the Committee that the Amendment is not acceptable to us.

Mr. H. Clark

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, could he tell us why Pensions (Increase) Acts in this country generally apply to local authorities in this country who have to meet the bills for the pensions, but the same Acts do not apply to local authorities in overseas territories, who therefore do not have to meet the bill?

Mr. Oram

Local authorities in this country are responsible to the law in this country. We in this House legislate in respect of local authorities and we accept responsibility in that way. But the same does not apply to overseas governments, who have their own laws, and where the local authorities are subject to the central governments. There is a distinction.

Mr. H. Clark

The Parliamentary Secretary will agree, I am sure, that the inability of the House of Commons to legislate for the local authorities in overseas territories does not absolve the House from its responsibility to pay decent pensions to people who have given decent service.

Mr. Peter Walker

My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made out a very strong case for the Amendment, and I

am surprised the Parliamentary Secretary gave no indication of the numbers involved. My right hon. Friend pointed out it was a very small number. The Parliamentary Secretary used the argument that perhaps the number of those covered by statutory bodies was larger, but he gave no indication of the numbers involved. It is a real moral responsibility of the British Government that these people are in a bad plight at present. I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the matter to a division.

Question put, That "paragraph" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 123.

Division No. 8.] AYES [10.44 p.m.
Abse, Leo Garrett, W. E. O'Malley, Brian
Albu, Austen Garrow, A. Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Gourlay, Harry Orme, Stanley
Alldritt, Walter Grey, Charles Oswald, Thomas
Armstrong, Ernest Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Padley, Walter
Bacon, Miss Alice Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.) Palmer, Arthur
Bagier, Cordon A. T. Hannan, William Pavitt, Laurence
Barnett, Joel Harper, Joseph Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Bence, Cyril Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Popplewell, Ernest
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hazell, Bert Prentice, R. E.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Heffer, Eric S. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Binns, John Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Probert, Arthur
Blackburn, F. Horner, John Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Blenkinsop, Arthur Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Randall, Harry
Boardman, H. Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Rees, Merlyn
Boston, Terence Howie, W. Rhodes, Geoffrey
Boyden, James Hoy, James Richard, Ivor
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Brown, Rt. Hn. Ceorge (Belper) Jackson, Colin Robertson, John (Paisley)
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Sheldon, Robert
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury) Johnson, James(K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Carmichael, Neil Jones, Dan (Burnley) Silkin, John (Deptford)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Chapman, Donald Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Skeffington, Arthur
Coleman, Donald Kenyon, Clifford Snow, Julian
Conlan, Bernard Lawson, George Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Swingler, Stephen
Crawshaw, Richard Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Symonds, J. B.
Cronin, John Lomas, Kenneth Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Dalyell, Tam Loughlin, Charles Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Darling, George Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Tinn, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) McBride, Neil Tomney, Frank
Davies, Harold (Leek) McCann, J. Tuck, Raphael
Davies, Ifor (Gower) MacDermot, Niall Urwin, T. W.
Delargy, Hugh Mclnnes, James Varley, Eric G.
Dell, Edmund Mackie, John (Enfield, E.) Wainwright, Edwin
Dempsey, James Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Doig, Peter Manuel, Archie Watkins, Tudor
Driberg, Tom Mapp, Charles Weitzman, David
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P. Mayhew, Christopher Wellbeloved, James
Dunn, James A. Millan, Bruce Whitlock, William
Dunnett, Jack Miller, Dr. M. S. Wilkins, W. A.
Ensor, David Milne, Edward (Blyth) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Morris, Charles (Openshaw) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley) Murray, Albert Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hltchin)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Neal, Harold Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Newens, Stan Zilliacus, K.
Floud, Bernard Norwood, Christopher
Freeson, Reginald Oakes, Gordon TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Galpern, Sir Myer Ogden, Eric Mrs. Harriet Slater and
Mr. Alan Fitch.
Agnew, Commander Sir Peter Farr, John Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen) Miscampbell, Norman
Anstruther-Cray, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Foster, Sir John Mitchell, David
Astor, John Gardner, Edward More, Jasper
Atkins, Humphrey Glover, Sir Douglas Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Awdry, Daniel Goodhart, Philip Murton, Oscar
Baker, W. H. K. Gower, Raymond Onslow, Cranley
Balniel, Lord Grant, Anthony Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Barlow, Sir John Gresham Cooke, R. Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Batsford, Brian Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick) Peel, John
Bell, Ronald Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Peyton, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Gurden, Harold Pounder, Rafton
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Biffen, John Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Prior, J. M. L.
Bingham, R. M. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pym, Francis
Black, Sir Cyril Hastings, Stephen Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Box, Donald Hawkins, Paul Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J. Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Ridsdale, Julian
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Roots, William
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hornby, Richard Russell, Sir Ronald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P. Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig, Sir John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington) Stainton, Keith
Buxton, Ronald Hutchison, Michael Clark Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Stodart, Anthony
Chataway, Christopher Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Studholme, Sir Henry
Chichester-Clark, R. Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Kershaw, Anthony Temple, John M.
Cooke, Robert Kilfedder, James A. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Corfield, F. V. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Kirk, Peter Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Crowder, F. P. Kitson, Timothy Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Walder, David (High Peak)
Dean, Paul Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Longbottom, Charles Weatherill, Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Longden, Gilbert Whitelaw, William
Doughty, Charles Lubbock, Eric Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Eden, Sir John MacArthur, Ian Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Mackie, George V. (C'ness & S'land) Wise, A. R.
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maddan, W. F. M. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Emery, Peter Maginnis, John E.
Errington, Sir Eric Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Eyre, Reginald Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Mr. Dudley Smith and
Mr. Ian Frazer.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot

At this stage, I only want to say one sentence, which is to thank hon. Members in all quarters of the House for their co-operation in giving this Bill a speedy passage. Provided that it does not return from another place, which I think is unlikely, this is the final stage of a Measure which, as we all know, enables these pensions increases to take effect from 1st January next, provided that it is passed before Christmas, which I think, with the co-operation of hon. Members, it will do.

Mr. Peter Walker

I should like to express the thanks of this side to the Financial Secretary for the courtesy he has shown throughout the Committee stage, and for the trouble he has taken. We certainly welcome this Bill's coming into operation, and look forward to the increases coming into effect on 1st January next.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.