HC Deb 06 November 1969 vol 790 cc1176-8
Q4. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Social Services about pensions proposals at Lloyd's on 23rd October represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his right hon. Friend on that occasion sneered at occupational pension schemes on the ground that they were simply a means by which employers sought to retain their labour? Does the right hon. Gentleman apply that same principle to the public service schemes which his colleagues administer, and is that why he is treating them so badly?

The Prime Minister

I do not recall, from my reading of my right hon. Friend's speech, that he sneered in this way. The only sneer in his speech that I can find was a justified sneer against the swindle scheme introduced by the right hon. Gentleman when he was in office.

Mr. Molloy

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it comes a bit thick from anyone on the Opposition benches to criticise his right hon. Friend's proposals, bearing in mind that the party opposite wept crocodile tears for the old-age pensioners, introduced a swindle and are now terribly frightened that the humane proposal of my right hon. Friend will make another contribution to my party winning the next General Election?

The Prime Minister

never fully understand what goes on in the minds of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but, since this question relates to a speech of my right hon. Friend, it is relevant to my hon. Friend's question that the first sentence which I can see in the speech is this:

The pension increase due next month … that is now in force?

fully restores the purchasing power of the pension to its October 1967 levels and means that the pension is once again worth in real value 20 per cent. more than what was being drawn before we took office.

Mr. Dean

Does the Prime Minister realise that the statement by the Secretary of State, and indeed his statement yesterday, created genuine anxieties amongst public service pension schemes and occupational pension schemes? Will he at least assure them that Her Majesty's Government regard themselves as under an obligation to maintain the pension rights of past and present members of public service pension schemes?

The Prime Minister

These matters were very fully discussed in the interchange which lasted for a full half hour after questions yesterday to my right hon. Friend. Many of them were put in the column-and-a-half question of the Opposition spokesman and were answered in an equally long reply by my right hon. Friend. I understand that there may be some desire for a debate, and I think that is the right way to deal with the matter. If so, this can be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Heath

The Prime Minister must be aware that occupational pension schemes provide about one-third of National Savings, namely, about £800 million a year. The Secretary of State last night stated that, as a result of his present proposals, occupational pension schemes will have to be cut back. This means that voluntary savings will have to be replaced by what is, in effect, taxation, and this is damaging to voluntary savings and to the national approach to them.

The Prime Minister

I think that at least we all agree about the importance of savings and of the relevance of pension funds to savings. To that extent I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. But it seems from the intervention of my right hon. Friend that there is considerable disagreement between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman about what was said last night, or the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of it. Surely debate is the best way of resolving that question. It can also resolve what, to me, is an. unanswered question, in view of the dissatisfaction of right hon. Gentlemen opposite about what my right hon. Friend stated yesterday—whether they intend to bridge the gap in the way they want by increased Government expenditure, which again is rather a difficult commitment for them to make, or whether they intend that the whole of the burden should fall upon the insurance contributions of those who do not have the opportunity to belong to pension schemes.