§ 2.39 p.m.
§ LORD JEFFREYSMy Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government, with reference to the answer given on Wednesday, 11th February, what is the total number of officers who retired under the provisions of the Royal Warrant and corresponding instruments of 1919, and whether the figures and calculations upon which that answer was based may be given to the House.]
§ THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS)My Lords, the total number of surviving officers who retired under the 1919 code is estimated at about 16,500. This figure includes not only retired officers of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, but also of the former Indian Armed Forces. I should emphasise that, as in the case of the answer which I gave my noble and gallant friend on February 11, figures are necessarily approximate. As I intimated to my noble friend, in a letter to him subsequent to my reply to his Question in this House on February 11, there are three main elements in the figure of cost I then quoted. These are: first, the cost of restoration of the full 1919 rates to those officers, relatively few in number, who have not had any part of the 1935 so-called "cut" restored to them subsequently; secondly, the cost of making up the full 1919 rates to those who have had the cut restored to them in part; thirdly, the cost of a 20 per cent. addition to the 1919 rates for all the categories I have mentioned, including those officers whose pensions were re-assessed for service during the 1939–45 war.
§ LORD JEFFREYSMy Lords, may I ask my noble and gallant friend whether it is not a fact that the cost of restoring any part of an Indian Army officer's pension which may have been deducted does not fall upon the British Treasury; and is it not also a fact that call-up service is extra to that on which his retired pay is calculated and it should not, therefore, be counted in reckoning increases or decreases in the original rate of an officer's retired pay?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISMy Lords, as regards the first supplementary question, I understand that when the Indian Army, as such, ceased to exist, the Indian Government and the Pakistan Government made an agreement to pay British officers their pensions. If there is any question of alteration in those pensions, such as increasing them, I do not think that the Pakistan or Indian Governments would consider it—they have made their contract and they will stand by it. I do not think that the Treasury will be very willing to take on a responsibility of that sort, having had no say in fixing the amount of the original basic pensions. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I really did not quite understand it. That is undoubtedly my fault and not his. If he would put it down in writing, and include any other points upon which he is not clear, I shall be very pleased to give him an answer which I hope will be satisfactory.
§ LORD JEFFREYSMy Lords, as regards the Indian and Pakistan pensions, is it not a fact that after the agreement was made these pensions were reduced when the British pensions were reduced? Consequently, ought they not, in justice, to have been increased when the increase was made in the British pensions?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISThat sounds a very reasonable suggestion to me, and it is one with which I would sympathise. But I do not know quite what the situation is. However, as I have said, if the noble Lord will put these points down in writing I will have them studied and the necessary information produced—I hope to his satisfaction.
§ EARL WINTERTONMy Lords, may I. as one who had some official connection with this matter—in the past I raised 772 it in another place—ask the noble and gallant Earl whether there is any objection to reopening negotiations with the Indian and Pakistan Governments on the basis put by my noble friend behind him?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISThere would, I feel sure, be no objection on the part of anyone in this country. The only thing I am doubtful about is whether the Indian and Pakistan Governments would agree to negotiate.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, may I ask the noble and gallant Earl if, when he answers the question put by my noble friend Lord Jeffreys, he could arrange to have the answer printed in the Proceedings of the House? Because there are a great many of us, besides those who have spoken, who are very much interested in this matter.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISYes, I most certainly will do anything which noble Lords would like me to do. If it is correct and proper procedure to have the answer circulated, I shall be delighted to follow that course.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, going back to the original reply given by the Minister with regard to the pensions of retired British Army officers, may I ask what the cost would be of making up the pensions of the first class of officers to whom he referred—that is, those who have been most seriously affected? They are, in fact, not getting the 1919 rates. What would be the amount required to make up their pensions? And could the noble and gallant Earl also tell us what are the ranks of the officers?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISI have not the papers with me to refer to, but my recollection is this. I think the officers to whom the noble Lord refers total fewer than 500 who were retired on the 1919 rates. To restore to them the 9½ per cent. cut which was made in 1935 would cost, I think, something like £150,000. I believe that is right. That, of course, does not include the Indian Army officers and does not make allowance for the 20 per cent. restoration which has been suggested. The fact is that just to restore the 9½ per cent. cut which was made in the 1919 rates would cost the amount I have mentioned.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Earl for giving that information. May I ask him whether he can tell the House why it is not possible, considering the comparatively small amount which would be required, to make good this cut? These officers' pensions were cut in circumstances which at the time seemed justified to the Government, and that cut has never been restored. These people are getting 9½ per cent. less than they were entitled to in 1919. Why do not the Government make good that cut and do justice to these unfortunate officers?
§ EARL, ALEXANDER OF TUNISMy Lords, I admit that a long time has gone by, and lots of people could have done something about it before now. I do think there is a very strong case, as I told your Lordships when we discussed this matter a little while ago. I put it in these terms. I said that as long as I was in my present job I would not forget those officers and I would do my best to see that the matter was examined and kept under review, which is another way of saying f will be very sympathetically inclined to see that they are properly treated.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, in order to regularise the position, may I suggest this? The noble and gallant Earl gave an undertaking that he would circulate something in Hansard. In order to get that correctly done, when the document, or whatever it is, is ready, will the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, please put down a Written Question? We can then circulate the information. Strictly speaking, we can circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT only matters which are given in reply to a Question.