HC Deb 02 June 1965 vol 713 cc1710-2
26. Mr. Onslow

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to announce the results of his review of Armed Services pensions.

28. Dr. Bennett

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made towards achieving parity in Service pensions regardless of date of retirement.

47. Mr. Lubbock

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make arrangements to ensure that Armed Forces pensions will keep their full purchasing power instead of being eroded by inflation.

64. Mr. Allason

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will reduce the age at which increases in Service pensions operate from 60 to 55 years.

Mr. Mayhew

We are considering these and other proposals. I cannot yet say when a statement will be made.

Mr. Onslow

I do not think I need ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that that is not a very satisfactory reply. May I ask him what representations he has received concerning the cynical disregard by the present Government of the pledge given on their behalf by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) before the election, and how much longer he is going to wait before making some effort to relieve these pensioners of the burden of increased taxation and increasing inflation which the present Government have placed upon them in the last six months?

Mr. Mayhew

The major part of the burden was placed there by the preceding Government. I cannot accept any of the implications in the first part of that supplementary question. I am not in a position to make a statement yet.

Dr. Bennett

After 7½ months in office—[Laughter.]—which was been far more burdensome to the country than 13 years of Tory Government—surely the present Administration ought to be prepared to come clean with an answer? Is it a fact that the present Colonial Secretary gave his party's pledge to the officers and men retired from the Services that they agree with the principle of parity? This putting off of the decision is surely unworthy of any Government, even the present one.

Mr. Mayhew

There is no question of putting off a decision. This is a difficult question and we are naturally having to give it very careful consideration. The only thing certain about previous attitudes of the parties is that the Conservative Party were opposed to parity from beginning to end.

Mr. Shinwell

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the present Government, in their review of the Armed Services pensions issue, will not think it is wrong to come to a satisfactory decision because the previous Administration failed to do so? Is my hon. Friend aware that in the last seven or eight years hon. Members in all parts of the House sought to bring about a revision of the scheme and failed to do so, because the previous Tory Administration refused to do anything?

Mr. Mayhew

That is completely right. If the present Government find it possible to help these pensioners we can be sure that the Opposition will vote against the means for paying them.

Sir A. V. Harvey

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), as spokesman for the Opposition in Army matters, gave a very definite pledge in reply to a questionnaire from the Officers' Pension Society? Why are the Labour Government now going back on these pledges which they gave?

Mr. Mayhew

We are going back on no pledges that we have given. The Government are bound by their election programme which does not commit the Government either for or against the implementation of parity at this time.

Sir G. Nicholson

Is not the truth that this matter is far too serious for party politics and that it should be the concern of all parties? Is it not time for any Government to treat old and faithful military servants of the Crown fairly? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this issue calls for a larger-minded approach than mere party controversy?

Mr. Mayhew

I agree. There are real hardships being suffered not only by Armed Service pensioners but by all public service pensioners. This is the point of our review. If the matter can be taken out of party politics, well and good. This is a matter for both sides, and not one.