Clause 2 (Hansard, 18 April 1973)

§ The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood)
I beg to move Amendment No 1, in page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (e).
In Committee on 13th March I moved a similar amendment to delete Clause 2(2)(e). On that occasion the Committee refused to agree to that amendment because I was not able to state the attitude that the Government were taking to the purpose behind the new subsection. As hon. Members will remember, the subsection had attracted fairly wide support both in this House and in another place. I undertook on that occasion to report the Government's decision on this important matter before this House was asked to part with the Bill.
The Government have now completed their consideration of this complicated and difficult question and they have decided that they should be prepared, on the grounds of hardship, to make the same arrangements for the former members of the South Arabian Security Forces as already exist for civil pensioners of the former South Arabian Services. That means, in other words, that we are prepared to make ex gratia loan advances with effect from 1st April 1973 to bring payments up to the level of pensions due for service given up to 30th November 1967.
The Government have taken this step to try to alleviate the hardship suffered by individual pensioners. It in no way changes the Government's view that responsibility for these pensions rests properly with the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen.
621 I expect the annual cost to be between £100,000 and £200,000, and a Supplementary Estimate will be presented later.
In general these arrangements will apply to all entitled officers. But I must make it clear that the Government reserve the right to deny a loan advance in any case where we are satisfied that there was disloyalty to the former British administration.
I am confident that the announcement I have made will be gladly received by all those who have given support to the amendment which was made in another place. For reasons that I have given to the House on earlier occasions, the Government have the power, without the inclusion of this subsection, to make loan advances to these people. Therefore, the subsection is, and in my opinion always has been, unnecessary. If it were kept in the Bill it would breach the principle that the legal responsibility for these pensions rests with the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen, not with Her Majesty's Government.
Therefore, in view of the Government's willingness to make these loan advances, I ask the House to agree to the amendment and to delete the subsection.

§ Mr. Goronwy Roberts (Caernarvon)
In moving the amendment the Minister has made a statement which I believe will commend itself to the House generally. The object of the words which he now seeks to delete was to right an obvious and long-standing injustice to a number of officers who served this country and, indeed, Southern Arabia with loyalty and devotion before the transfer of power.
Without retaining the subsection the Minister accepts the argument on merit and undertakes to extend to these officers "similar arrangements" as exist for civil pensioners, as we call them. The amendment which was carried in the other place and confirmed in Committee upstairs was declaratory, and no one would pretend that its drafting was perfect. Granted that there is no likelihood of a change of policy concerning civilian pensioners, I agree that the insertion of these words might have created fresh anomalies if they had been retained in the Bill.
It is enough that the Minister has deferred generously and graciously to the 622 remarkable consensus of view on both sides of the House on Second Reading of the Bill and throughout its different stages in both Houses and has undertaken that the pre-independence military personnel will be treated in the same way as civilian pensioners.
I shall not detain the House longer than to welcome the Minister's statement. In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), who regrets that he cannot be here this evening, especially to hear the statement which has just been made, I should like to quote what he said in the closing stages of the discussion in Committee so that the House may hear from this Front Bench that the Minister has met precisely what my hon. and learned Friend suggested: If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would say that they accept the merits, as far as I am concerned, the right hon. Gentleman can have his amendment; he can delete Clause 2(2)(e); he can do it by means of ex gratia loans; I do not mind how he does it. The right hon. Gentleman is an honourable man. If he says that he accepts the merits, and will see that these people are paid, I am happy to leave the matter in his capable hands."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March 1973, Standing Committee F; c. 23–4.] It is clear, therefore, that the Minister has met in detail the spirit and intention of what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court and, indeed, the consensus of both Houses on this matter. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. It makes the Bill even better than it was when first presented.

§ Mr. Richard Luce (Arundel and Shoreham)
As one of the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been pressing the Government to honour what was clearly an obligation to indigenous former officers serving the British Government and the Aden Government before independence, I am delighted to be able to support what was said by my right hon. Friend, on the understanding that he will fulfil the obligation and, by means of ex gratia loans, pay pensions to those retired officers who were in the various forces in Aden before 1967. Everyone, not only hon. Members but serving British officers who knew and worked with these people in Aden, and in particular the officers who have been advocating this 623 step, will be grateful to my right hon. Friend and to the Government for what they have done.
This is undoubtedly one of the many legacies of our Empire. I understand that there are about 300 of these ex-officers, the vast majority of whom have served the British people with the greatest loyalty. There was never a shadow of doubt in my mind that we should have fulfilled this obligation. There was only one honourable course of action to take and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has announced that we are to take it. I hope very much that our friends in the Arab world—and we have many friends there— will recognise that we have decided to do and will recognise, too, that ours is a country which honours is obligations.
I have two brief points to put to my right hon. Friend. I accept that he may not be able to answer them tonight but perhaps he will consider them. The first is about the timing of the payment of these ex gratia loans. Perhaps I did not hear my right hon. Friend when he was dealing with this, but it is the case that when, in 1970 we undertook to fulfil the obligation to the indigenous civil servants we paid them as from 1st April of that year. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will think around the possibility of making these loans retrospective and paying them as from that date.
The second matter is that of the treatment of those—if it is possible to detect them—who were disloyal to the Aden Government at the time and, indeed, to the British Government. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) was right in an earlier debate to draw attention to the fact that there had been a mutiny and that a number of officers had been disloyal, but I think he was wrong to say that because a small minority had been disloyal we should penalise the vast majority who had remained loyal to the British Government. I am sure that on reflection my hon. and gallant Friend will reconsider that, but it is important to meet his challenge and not pay pensions to those who were responsible for or played a part in killing British soldiers during that mutiny.
624 I hope that, however difficult it may be, my right hon. Friend will find a means of vetting and picking out those who were disloyal. There were a number of forces in Aden which were not in any way involved in the mutiny. I suppose that in respect of the Hadhrami Beduin Legion the pension can be paid automatically, but I suggest that where forces such as the Armed Police were involved we should give careful consideration to inviting them to put in an application for pensions, stating where they were at the time of the mutiny, what they were doing and where they were serving. On that basis it might be possible to sift out those who were disloyal.