§ 28. Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the cost of raising the entitlement of widows of Service pensioners to one-half their husband's pension, instead of one-third; and whether he will introduce legislation to this effect.
§ Mr. MayhewAbout £1.5 million. My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.
§ Mr. OnslowWill the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, bearing in mind the fact that widows of Members of this House have a much more generous entitlement and that the country at large 834 would probably recognise that widows of former members of the Forces are equally entitled to similar generosity?
§ Mr. MayhewI appreciate that, but there are differences. For instance, ours is a contributory scheme, this is not. In addition, the provision for certain lump-sum payments and for children is much more generous than in the other scheme.
§ 29. Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the cost of raising the pensions of all regular Service personnel who retired before 1st January, 1956, to the levels prevailing after that date; and whether he will introduce legislation to this effect.
§ Mr. MayhewI would refer the hon. Member to the Answers I gave in reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) on 8th February, and to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on 1st February.
§ Mr. OnslowCan we have an assurance that when such vast sums of money are apparently to be saved by these cuts in defence expenditure, which many of us regret, at least those in the Services and their dependants can look forward to some benefit and not expect to see the money frittered away in extravagant expenditure elsewhere?
§ Mr. MayhewI am not sure what this talk of extravagant expenditure means coming from that side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Prescription charges."]—but I can say, of course, that these matters are all under review.
§ Mr. PagetIs my hon. Friend aware that this is not a question of extravagant expenditure; that these are people who earned pensions before the money was depreciated and have been paid in bad money; that it would be dishonest and immoral to go on doing so, and that we promised not to do so?
§ Mr. MayhewThe need and the problem is very widely appreciated, but obviously I cannot say anything in advance of the review now being undertaken.
§ Sir A. V. HarveyIn view of the pledge given by the party opposite at the General Election, and recalling the pledge made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), 835 when spokesman for the Army, will the Government do something about honouring a pledge for once?
§ Mr. MayhewI clearly cannot make a statement now, but as soon as possible a full statement will be made to the House.
§ Mr. LiptonIs thought being given to reducing the number of various codes that now apply by assimilating them as soon as possible into one code?
§ Mr. MayhewI agree that there are too many codes, and a number of anomalies and a number of obviously pressing claims, but I would beg of the House not to ask me now for a substantive answer.
§ Mr. ThorneycroftIn giving consideration to this matter, which is of really deep concern to a great many people, would the Minister at least give full consideration to the fact that very specific pledges were given by his party—[Interruption.]—very specific pledges were given by the hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on this subject, and that this pledge must be properly taken into consideration in any answer which he arrives at?
§ Mr. MayhewI referred to this matter in an earlier debate in December. The intention of the Government is, of course, fully to carry out what is in their election programme. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] There is no question of that, but I cannot now say what the results of this review will be. I should have thought that this Government had already shown their understanding of the needs of pensioners. There is nothing that hon. Members opposite can lecture us about in this respect.