Lords Sitting of 20 January 1953

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Avebury—Took the Oath.

CIVIL AVIATION FLYING UNIT
2.35 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My 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 what duties are carried out by the Ministry of Civil Aviation Flying Unit and how many aircraft and pilots are retained for such purposes.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the Minister of Civil Aviation is responsible for the safety of civil air transport in these islands. This entails, among other things, providing and operating the radio and radar services and the ground lighting required. It also entails licensing civil aircrew. The aircraft of the Ministry of Civil Aviation Flying Unit are employed on work essential to these two duties. On navigational services, this work consists of continuous flight testing and calibration of aids; and of operational trials of procedures and development flying. The Flying Unit is also used for training ground control approach crews and for maintaining flying standards of operations officers at Headquarters. As regards civil aircrew, the Flying Unit examines candidates for instrument rating certification and commercial pilot's licences. The Unit is not provided for the transport of Ministers and officials. Commercial operators are available for this. It is, however, occasionally used for departmental communications where these can be combined with the programme of specialist duties. At the beginning of this year, there were thirteen pilots and seventeen aircraft, shortly to be reduced to fourteen.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the annual cost of maintaining the Ministry of Civil Aviation Flying Unit and what has been the average number of hours flown per aircraft in the Unit last year and this year.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the direct operational cost of maintaining the Ministry of Civil Aviation Flying Unit during the financial year 1951–52 was £210,000. The number of aircraft employed varied in the course of the year; accordingly, a simple average is not representative. Last year the Flying Unit carried out a little under 7,000 hours flying. The Doves average 540 hours, the Consuls 594 hours and the Ansons, which are being disposed of, 350 hours.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the very heavy cost of this Unit and the comparatively low number of flying hours for each aircraft, would the Minister examine the position to see whether some of these functions, such as the testing of pilots and calibration tests, could not be carried out more economically, and just as successfully, by delegating them to other air operational bodies, in the same way as the safety of aircraft was made the responsibility of the Air Registration Board?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will examine anything which might reasonably be an economy in the administration of his Department and that he will examine carefully what the noble Lord, who speaks with such great experience on this question, has said. I must point out, however, that the duties of this Unit are of a highly technical character, requiring very special equipment to be carried in the aircraft, and these aircraft cannot be used easily for alternative purposes. May I also point out, in regard to this work of calibration, which closely relates to safety, that the Minister would be most reluctant to delegate any of his duties in this field? At the same time, I am sure the Minister will look carefully at what the noble Lord has said to see whether anything can be done on the lines he has suggested.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, would the noble Earl also refer his right honourable friend to the fact that this is a most efficient Unit, and that if there is any attempt to break it up, the result will undoubtedly be a falling off of efficiency and an increase in the danger to air communication in this country?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said. The Ministry of Civil Aviation Flying Unit is a very efficient unit, and I can say quite definitely that there is not the slightest intention to break it up. What I have said is that there may be certain duties which conceivably could be parted with; but at the present time it appears, from the duties carried out by the Unit, that a very fair utilisation of the more modern aircraft is, in fact, achieved.

EXPORT OF MILITARY JET AIRCRAFT
2.39 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the policy with regard to supplying modern jet-engined military aeroplanes to the countries in the Middle East; how many such aeroplanes have been supplied during the last six months, and to which countries; and how many is it agreed to supply in the near future, and to which countries.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, as a result of the changes in the defence programme announced by the Prime Minister last July, it has become possible to resume the export of jet aircraft, which had been suspended after the outbreak of war in Korea, and thus to meet the requests of foreign Governments, including those of the Middle East, some of whom had placed orders and made payments on account as long ago as 1950. Her Majesty's Government have, of course, to satisfy themselves that there are no strong political objections. Their policy in such matters is based on the Joint Statement
1082
by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France on May 25, 1950. This recognised the need of the Arab Slates and Israel to maintain a certain level of armed force for internal security and legitimate self-defence, and also for the purpose of enabling them to play their part in the defence of the area as a whole.
The aircraft in question are jet fighters and, as such, essentially a defensive weapon, and Her Majesty's Government do not consider that their action in authorising the supply of these aircraft is in any way inconsistent with their responsibilities under the Joint Statement. The undertaking given in that Statement to prevent the violation of frontiers or armistice lines remains of full force and effect. It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to disclose publicly details of defence equipment supplied to foreign Governments, but I can assure the noble Lord that the number of aircraft already exported and authorised by Her Majesty's Government for export in the near future is small.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess, but I venture to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the names of the States who received these aircraft can be given. Is not Egypt one of them? Are not our own Forces in Egypt under threat of violence at the present time? Therefore, what is the sense of our supplying modern aircraft to Egypt?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, that raises, of course, a considerable question, which is not easily dealt with by supplementary question and answer in this House. Egypt is one of the countries with which we have been dealing in respect of these aircraft.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must press the noble Marquess. Is he aware that our Forces in Egypt are under threat of violence at the present time, and that most inflammatory speeches are being made?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am perfectly well aware that in the last few weeks some inflammatory speeches have been, regrettably, made. The question of these aeroplanes predates the making of those statements by some considerable time. As the noble

1083
Lord knows, we are conducting negotiations with Egypt over the question of the Sudan. I hope the noble Lord will not think that merely because some persons make inflammatory statements therefore we should no longer continue negotiations on what are matters of considerable importance to both countries.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble Marquess has not really answered my Question. I also asked what future supplies are to be made. The noble Marquess speaks of inflammatory speeches by "persons," but I am referring to speeches by Ministers in the present Government of Egypt. I should like to ask a further question. There is supposed to be a state of war in existence between certain Arab States and Israel. What is the sense, therefore, of supplying aircraft to people who are in a state of war?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I referred in the course of my original answer to the Joint Statement of the three Powers. That regulates the position and, as I have said, the undertaking given in that Statement is still of full force.

LAW REFORM (PERSONAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that this is a short Bill of two clauses to amend Section 2 of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, 1948, in relation to the assessment in Scotland of damages for death. The circumstances surrounding this Bill are somewhat unusual. The Bill comes to your Lordships' House from another place, where, I am informed, it passed through all its stages almost without a word being said. In these days of strong and often lengthy political argument in another place this is somewhat remarkable, but I hope that the Bill may not, for that reason, be unwelcome to your Lordships. This is not a Party Bill in any sense of the word. It was introduced in another place by Mr. Brooman-White, who I understand is a Conservative Member of Parliament, and it was supported by eight Members, belonging to all Parties, whose names will be familiar to most of your Lordships: the right
1084
honourable gentlemen, Mr. Walter Elliot and Mr. John Maclay, Mr. Thomas Fraser, Mr. Grimond, Lieutenant-Commander Clark Hutchison, Mr. Hoy, Colonel Gomme-Duncan and Mr. Oswald. I hope that when I have briefly explained the purpose of this Bill your Lordships may be satisfied and will give it a Second Reading.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide that where a person raises an action of damages in Scotland in respect of another person's death no account shall be taken, in assessing the damages to which the pursuer is entitled, of any benefit which he is receiving under the National Insurance Acts as a result of that other person's death. This is already the law in England, by virtue of Section 2 (5) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, 1948, which provides that in assessing damages in respect of a person's death in any action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, or under the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, there shall not be taken into account any right to benefit under the National Insurance Acts as a result of that person's death. No corresponding provision in respect of Scotland was included in that Act, as it was considered that such had always been the law in Scotland and that, accordingly, no express enactment to that effect was necessary.
In 1950, however, in the case of Adams v. James Spencer & Co., a widow in Scotland whose husband had been killed by an accident while at work brought an action for damages against his employers. As a result of his death she had become entitled to death benefit under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. The Court of Session held that the value of that benefit fell to be taken into account by the jury when assessing damages. They apparently took the view that, since no provision relating to Scotland had been included in the Act of 1948 corresponding to Section 2 (5) of that Act, the intention of the Legislature must have been to distinguish between English and Scots law in this matter. It is plainly most undesirable that there should be any distinction between English and Scots law, and that, for instance, a widow in England in the same position as was Mrs. Adams in Scotland should have damages assessed without regard to the benefit which she was receiving under the National Insurance Acts, whereas the

1085
Scottish widow should have her damages reduced because of the National Insurance benefit. Apart from this, there are strong arguments in principle and in law against the taking into account of National Insurance benefits in such cases. The present Bill will, therefore, put the position beyond possible question, so that in future where, say, a widow raises an action in Scotland in respect of her husband's death, the jury will be directed, in assessing damages, to take no account of any National Insurance benefit which the widow is receiving. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Morrison.)
2.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to support the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced. I should congratulate the noble Lord on making the first speech in regard to a Bill which has passed through another place before coming here—an experience probably unique in regard to any Bill considered in Parliament, certainly of recent years. I can confirm what the noble Lord has said. It was never the intention under the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, 1948, to make the slightest distinction in this matter between England and Scotland. But whereas in England an action for damages for death was taken under the Fatal Injuries Act, 1946, in Scotland it was taken at Common Law. It so happens that in the interpretation placed on the original Act in the case which has already been cited by the noble Lord, an entirely different view was taken, and the jury were instructed to take into account benefits arising from National Insurance. Accordingly, this Bill puts that matter right, and places the position of a widow, say, suing for damages in the case of her husband, exactly on all fours in England and in Scotland. I hope that your Lordships will give this useful measure an easy passage. I think it is an interesting example of what Private Members can do with even the very shortest time that is afforded to them.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the widow whose case has given rise to this Bill will be looked after, so that she does not suffer?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I say, with reserve, that I do not think that that case can be dealt with under this Bill, or is being dealt with under this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (REMOVAL OF SURFACE SOIL) BILL
2.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, as your Lordships know, a similar Bill to this was read a second time in this House on July 10 of last year, when it was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who I am glad to see in his place today. That Bill was welcomed by the Government, and on all sides of the House. Unfortunately, however, time could not be found in another place for consideration of the Bill. As the present Bill has come to your Lordships' House from another place—where I believe it passed through all three stages in a minute—perhaps it will be very successful. I do not intend to say much about the Bill, as it was fully discussed on July 10. I would remind your Lordships that the object of the Bill is to enable more speedy and effective action to be taken against those people who, for quick profits, strip the top soil from good agricultural land and leave it derelict—profits which we cannot afford in this island, with its large population and limited amount of agricultural land. The Bill is limited in scope. First, it applies only where the people intend to sell the soil. Secondly, the removal of the soil must constitute development under the Town and Country Planning Act, and, thirdly, it must have been carried out without planning permission under that Act. In fact, the only people who will, I hope, be affected by the Bill are those who try, through a weakness in the procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act, to make quick profits by despoiling one of our greatest national assets, our agricultural land. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
2.56 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we on this side of the House shall certainly not oppose the Bill, which I have no doubt performs some useful purpose. On the other hand, I should like to utter this word of caution. Here is a new Bill creating a new criminal offence. I gather from the noble Lord that it was passed through another place in, I think he said, one minute. Having reached a ripe old age, I confess that I am a little suspicious of Bills which create new criminal offences and which are passed through after discussion of one minute. When I look at this Bill, I am not quite sure that it comes up to the canon which I should desire, for I should desire any Bill which creates a new criminal offence to be worded in perfectly plain language, so that everybody may know if he is doing anything wrong. Perhaps the noble Lord differs from me, in that he has a far greater knowledge of the Town and Country Planning Act than I have. I confess that I was responsible for introducing that Act in this House, and I do not think I ever had a more difficult measure to introduce. I tried to be rather pontifical about it, and to pretend that I understood all about it at the time. As a matter of fact, there were huge chunks of it which I did not understand with that clarity which I should have wished and which exists in the mind of the noble Lord.
For instance, if you are going to sell some of your top soil at the present time, and you have this Bill in front of you, you must ask yourself this question: Does the removal of that soil constitute a development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947? The ordinary gentleman who lives in the country, possibly by farming, who is asked by somebody wishing to build a herbaceous border whether he will allow him to take a lorry load of soil for that herbaceous border, must now realise that the question of whether he can do so or not depends on whether or not this is development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. If he goes to the noble Lord, no doubt he will get a clear and concise answer. But if he comes to me, I should say, "I should like notice of that question." and then I should consult various people who, perhaps, would be able to give me an answer—though perhaps not. But the gentleman
1088
who is making his living in the country by tilling his soil, will be in a position of very great difficulty. It is certainly not for me to put a spoke in the wheel of this Bill, the passage of which took only one minute in another place, but I venture to think that between now and the next stage of this Bill the noble Lord might consider whether he can do anything to make it more plain, because quite obviously it is not plain at the present time. I am sure he will agree with me that it is most undesirable to create criminal offences unless the people on whom this Bill might operate can tell quite plainly and beyond a peradventure whether, if they do a certain thing, they will or will not commit a criminal offence.
Subject to that point—which is really a matter of drafting—I am not in the least opposed to the Bill, because the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in some of our discussions here, indicated that there is an abuse which must be stopped. But I venture to think that the point I have raised might be considered to see whether it is possible—it may not be—to put the matter in plainer language, so that the ordinary man who contemplates selling a lorry load of his top soil may know whether or not in so doing he is infringing the criminal law.
3.0 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I say first that I am greatly obliged to by noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney for having taken charge of this Bill? It was not that I did not want to do it, but I believe it was thought that I might not be back in time to move the Second Reading to-day. I was interested in what the noble and learned Earl who has just sat down has said. I, too, dislike a measure that goes through, so to speak, "on the nod," and which creates a new criminal offence. But we had a longer discussion here last July, when this Bill had the support of one of the legally qualified noble Lords on the other side of the House, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and also the support of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who said he was speaking for the Opposition. Several of us, I think, pretended that we knew more about the Town and Country Planning Act than we really did. It was a very complicated measure. I had the opportunity of taking a fairly considerable part in the discussion when that Bill

1089
was before this House, and at that time it was thought that this definition of what was "development" was a somewhat wide one. But I do not think there is any risk. As a matter of fact, for what it is worth, I do not think there has been an appeal—at any rate, I have not heard so. Last June the Oxted bench of magistrates determined that this was "development" within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act. One would have thought that if that had been really disputed, a case stated might have been asked for, for this is clearly a point of law.
EARL JOWITT: What was the extent of the removal of the soil in that case?
LORD LLEWELLIN: I believe it was about two acres, taking the whole of the top soil of the field. Obviously, the matter must depend a great deal upon extent. I should think that if you were to take, say, a couple of barrow loads and sell it to your neighbour to put on his garden, it is doubtful whether that would come into this category. I should think that this point has been safeguarded. Perhaps I may be allowed to direct the attention of noble Lords to Clause 2 (3) which runs as follows:
"In proceedings under this Act it shall be a defence to show that, before the carrying out of the operations in respect of which the proceedings are brought, it was determined or decided under section seventeen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, that those particular operations would not fall within paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the foregoing section; but a determination or decision under the said section seventeen shall not in other circumstances be treated as conclusive for the purposes of this Act."
So the person intending to take away this soil and sell it can go to the appropriate authority under the Town and Country Planning Act and ask for a decision. If the decision is against what he wants he may then involve himself in a summary prosecution if he takes away the soil.
I agree with the noble and learned Earl that if we create a new criminal offence we want to see that it is created with some degree of certainty. But if a man wants to make a profit, and takes away the whole of the top soil and sells
1090
it, he can safeguard himself by getting this determination in advance. Indeed—following on a point which the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, made on the last occasion—it would be rather advantageous if in the case of some large housing sites the top soil were taken away from under the houses themselves, so that the soil which would otherwise be sterilised by the house could be made available for the garden, and so forth. If we stop this practice from being pursued on the wholesale scale in which it has been carried on in some agricultural areas, these people may be led to buying the soil from local authority building estates; and I have no doubt it would be of advantage to everybody to take that soil for the making of gardens in suburban areas. I hope the House will give this Bill, which is exactly the same Bill as I introduced last July, a Second Reading.
3.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should like to welcome this Bill in its entirety. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said, it is the same Bill as the one he introduced, which we also welcomed. I think I can say that it is welcomed also by the whole of the agricultural community. The noble and learned Earl raised the question of the taking of a barrow-load of soil for flower-beds, and so forth. I speak subject to correction, but I do not think that such a case would be affected. I believe Lord Llewellin will agree with me that this matter was probably started by the Oxted decision. In that case the area was of two or three acres, but there were many more acres potentially involved; indeed, a large area of good agricultural land would have been affected. That was the origin of this Bill. I think all who are interested in keeping in production as much of our agricultural land as possible will agree with the object of this measure, and on behalf of Her Majesty's, Government, I have pleasure in signifying our agreement to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RETIRED OFFICERS' PENSIONS
3.8 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS LORD JEFFREYS rose to call attention to the grievance of officers who retired under the provisions of the Royal Warrant and corresponding instruments of 1919, and whose retired pay, after being reduced on account of the fall in the cost of living between 1924 and 1933, has not been correspondingly increased on account of the subsequent great rise in the cost of living; also to call attention to the inadequacy of the rates of pension of the older classes of retired officers of the Armed Forces; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name concerning the retired pay of officers of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, and particularly to consider the sense of grievance which is felt by those officers who retired under the provisions of the Royal Warrant and corresponding instruments of 1919. When I refer to-day to the Royal Warrant I hope that I may, for brevity, be allowed to mean also those other instruments which correspond—Admiralty Fleet Orders, Air Ministry Orders, Army Orders, and so forth.
As is customary in another place, I would first disclaim any personal interest in this matter. My own retired pay was granted under a special Warrant applicable only to certain officers; and I am not affected in any way whatsoever by the Royal Warrant of 1919. In the Motion as it was originally put down was a reference to the inadequacy of the pensions of officers' widows, but I withdrew that part of my Motion. The new and improved rates of pension for such widows recently announced show that something has been done for these widows, and even if those rates do not err on the side of generosity, I am encouraged to hope that the Government will do something to rectify the longstanding grievance of those officers who retired under the Warrant and Orders of 1919.
Paragraph 1 of the Royal Warrant of that year read as follows:
"The rate will be subject after five years to revision, either upwards or downwards"—
I ask your Lordships to note those two words—
"to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent. according as the cost of living rises or falls. After the 1st July, 1924, a further revision may take place every three years."
1092
Those terms were the same for all three Services, though the wording was slightly different. I shall refer to that matter a little later on. In the case of the Army, the Warrant bore the signature of the then Secretary of State for War. It was a signature which was then, as it is now, a guarantee of good faith and in which there was the utmost confidence: it was "Winston S. Churchill". Can there be any doubt in any reasonable person's mind as to the intentions of that Warrant? The words of the Warrant were certainly taken as a promise by the officers concerned. I am, of course, aware that the Treasury claim that the word "may" in "may take place every three years" gives them an option to disregard the quite definite statement, "The rates will be subject … to revision," which comes earlier. I myself have been accused in another place by a Government spokesman of not knowing the difference between the words "may" and "shall." I wonder whether it is only the "gentleman in Whitehall" who can understand plain English. I suggest that this quibble is quite unworthy of a Government Department.
Moreover, whilst the terms of the Royal Warrant do include the word "may" in "may take place," Admiralty Fleet Order No. 2483 of 1919 is somewhat differently worded. It is as follows:
"It has been decided that 20 per cent. of the new rates of retired pay for officers shall be considered as due to the high cost of living, and shall be subject after five years to change either upwards or downwards"—
and I ask your Lordships to note that those words are the same—
"according as the cost of living rises or falls. The revision thereafter to take place every three years up or down on the basis of the Board of Trade prices."
There is no word "may" in that Order, nor does the word "may" appear in the corresponding Air Ministry Order No. 1003 of September 15, 1919. Again I say, can there be any doubt whatever as to the intentions of that Warrant and those Orders?
Now let us see what actually happened. From 1919 to 1922 the cost of living rose but, as the period was less than five years, the rise was not taken into account. That was in accordance with the Warrant. Thereafter, the cost of living fell steadily, and from 1924 onwards retired pay was reduced accordingly, until in 1933 it had

1093
been reduced to 11 per cent. below the basic rates of 1919. There is no question, I would say, of any doubt or any option as to the action of the Government. So long as the cost of living was falling, for so long the word "may" was interpreted as "shall," and the words "will be subject to revision" were taken quite literally and were acted upon. But in 1934 there was a slight rise in the cost of living figure and further rises appeared probable. Then it was that doubts began to afflict Treasury minds, doubts as to the meaning of the word "may" and the word "will," and it was decided that no risks must be taken of having to raise retired pay as a result of the rise in the cost of living. Accordingly, it was decided to consolidate and stabilise—those were the words officially used—the rates of retired pay; and in 1935 retired pay was stabilised at 9½ per cent. below the basic rates of 1919. This, I would say, was a one-sided and, I venture to add, far from creditable arrangement to which the agreement of those affected was neither asked nor given. It was, in fact, the fine old game as played by the Treasury of "Heads I win, tails you lose."
There is one more point I should like to make. Whenever there is any question of a possible increase of pensions, it is argued on behalf of the Treasury that no new pension code can be or should be retrospective. But the stabilisation of 1935 was in fact the introduction of a new code, and since it applied to all officers who had retired under the code of 1919, it was in fact retrospective, and retrospective for some sixteen years. In another place a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering me, said that he was opposed to exceptional treatment of ex-officers of the Forces. We do not ask for exceptional treatment; we ask for bare justice for these retired officers. But we also claim for them, as a right, the full benefits laid down in the Royal Warrant and other Orders of 1919 under the terms of which they retired.
I would say a word as to the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944, 1947 and 1952. By the Act of 1944, an increase of 10 per cent. was granted on pensions not exceeding £400 a year—that is the lowest range of pensions: that is to say, these officers get back the whole reduction, plus one-half of 1 per cent. On pensions between £400 and £600 an increase of 7½
1094
per cent. was granted. By the Act of 1947, on pensions between £600 and £750 there was an increase of 5 per cent., leaving these short by 4½ per cent. of the basic rates of 1919. All higher pensions received no increase whatever. In the Act of 1952, the only increases are based on what is called "hardship," and are given to those on the lowest rates of pension. For instance, if a pensioner is single and over sixty, and his pension is £425 per annum or under, he gets an increase of £20 per annum. If he is married and over sixty, and his pension is £550 per annum or under, he gets an increase of the munificent sum of £26 per annum—½6 more that if he was single.
What then is the general position? The cost of living is far above that of 1919, when the cost of living figure was 115. In 1947, it had reached 203, when the new system of computation started. Under that new system, which took into consideration other factors, the cost of living in 1952 had risen 32 per cent. as compared with 1948; that is to say, in 1948 it was 211.5 and in 1952 it was 235.5. Incidentally, the value of money to-day is enormously below that of 1919. Prices are very much above those of 1919. Consequently, salaries, wages, the pay of the Services, post-1945 pensions—I may almost venture to add the salaries of Members of Parliament—have risen very appreciably indeed. Yet only the lowest rates of Service pensions come up to even the 1919 rates. The increases given were only up to the level of the 1919 rates: these men get no increase on account of the increased cost of living. And in the higher pensions, not only is there no increase but there is an actual reduction as compared with 1919—and these are the men who served longest and bore the heaviest responsibility. I wonder how many, if any, wage and salary earners—or, if it comes to that, pensioners—are paid lower than the 1919 rates, as are these old officers? I very much doubt whether anybody except these old officers is paid even lower than the rate of 1919.
It may be asked what would be the cost of granting to those entitled to it retired pay on the scale laid down in the Royal Warrant of 1919—that is to say, 20 per cent. above the basic rates of 1919. I do not know what the exact cost of doing this would be, but I have heard mentioned a figure of between £350,000 and £400,000 per annum. If

1095
that figure is correct, it is not a very large sum to spend on doing bare justice, and fulfilling an obligation to these faithful servants of their country. In these days, when in all directions millions of pounds are spent like water, I suggest that that is not a very large sum to spend on doing justice. Let it not be forgotten that, whatever view the Treasury may take as to their liability to make payments, they do not omit to collect every sixpence due in taxes, so that pensions of £700 £1,000, £1,200 or whatever they may nominally be, are, after deduction of tax, worth very much smaller amounts.
Another argument which the Treasury may use against granting any increase in the retired pay may be to say, "If we do justice to Service pensioners, or indeed if we give them an increase of any kind, claims may be made by others—for instance, civil servants." I agree that some such claims may be made. Nevertheless, I submit that the strongest claims are those of officers who have served all over the world, who have faced dangers, who have endured hardships, who often have never known a settled home or good opportunities of educating their children without long separation from them, whose conditions have been less safe, less settled and less comfortable than those in the Civil Service, or indeed of any civilian, and who, on account of the necessity for physical fitness, if not for other reasons, are frequently retired at an earlier age than civil servants; and, lastly, who have been given a definite promise of certain terms, which promise has never been fulfilled.
I would add a word as to the officers who retired before 1919—that is to say, the older class of retired officers referred to in my Motion. They have had no undertaking given them such as was given to those who retired under the Royal Warrant of 1919, but their pensions are much smaller. They were granted when the pound was worth a pound—a golden sovereign. They are equally affected by the high cost of living and by the fall in the value of money. They are far from young, so if any increase is given to them the liability will not be one of long standing. There are not many of them, and some small concession as regards their retired pay would be a welcome and a generous gesture on the part of the Government. As an example,
1096
may I quote the case of a lieutenant-colonel, or one of equivalent rank in the other Services, of, say, the year 1914, and retired at £420 per annum? Again, I would stress that that is 420 golden sovereigns. Perhaps that is why, under the Act of 1952 which I have quoted, a pensioner, if he is single and over sixty and whose pension is £425 per annum or under can get an increase of twenty depreciated pounds.
My Lords, it is possible that some of my noble friends may wish to extend this debate very much further and to discuss the general question of pensions. I do not propose to do so. I am confining myself to pleading the case of the two classes mentioned in my Motion—namely, those who retired under the Royal Warrant of 1919 and who have, in my submission, a right to benefit by its terms, and the older pre-1919 officers for whose case I would beg favourable consideration. I am glad that my noble and gallant and very distinguished friend the Minister of Defence is to reply for the Government. I hope that his reply may be favourable, but in any case I am certain that on this as on all other occasions he is not unsympathetic to the interests of his old brother officers. I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure all your Lordships wish to join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, on moving this Motion in your Lordships' House. For many years in another place he tried to persuade successive Governments to take action on this matter, and I feel that, to some extent, at all events, the work that he did there has enabled or persuaded the Government to make some concession to widows and to their dependants, even though on the main question he has not had the success that we all hope he will have today. I am here to support him in the excellent speech he made. I do not propose to make a long speech because the noble Lord has covered all the ground that could be covered. I speak to your Lordships to-day merely to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's." Before going into the main subject I should like to congratulate the Government on having made the provision that they have made for widows and for their dependants, and on having extended for the first time the class of widow. This is a very considerable

1097
step forward. I do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth, and what I am trying to do to-day is to encourage the Government to go forward with their good work, not to criticise what they have already done. I feel quite certain that, in the good work that they have done, the noble and gallant Earl the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for Air have pulled their full weight, in the interests of the Government, in persuading their colleagues to make the new arrangements that have been made. I personally should like to thank the Minister of Defence for the work that he has done in this way.
Because originally this Motion set down by Lord Jeffreys covered the question of widows (although he has now excluded them, for the reasons that he has given) I feel that I ought just to refer to the White Paper which has been issued only to-day and which is available in the Printed Paper Office at the moment. There seems to be some distinction made between widows of various types. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the White Paper there is a distinction between long-service other ranks, as well as officers and Warrant Officers, Class I, who have given full-time service since August 31, 1950,and officers and Warrant Officers, Class 1, whose service terminated on or before August 31, 1950. A distinction is there made which was not made in the statement given by the Secretary of State for Air on December 16 As I have only just got the White Paper—it has been available for only a few hours in the Paper Office—I have not yet had time to ascertain exactly what this distinction implies. Perhaps the noble and gallant Earl will be able to tell us when he comes to reply on behalf of the Government. I would say, however, that, apart from the merits or otherwise of the distinction, I think it is unfortunate to bring in yet another anomaly on this subject of pensions.
Since I have had the pleasure of being concerned with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and others in this matter, we have found that the whole subject bristles with anomalies. Indeed, it seems to he very much a question of engaging in a "lucky dip" to see what you are going to get out of it. Apparently it depends entirely on when an officer entered a Service what pension he or his widow or his dependants
1098
get. Surely that is ridiculous. The service of an officer is equally valuable at any time. You have an Army, and au officer is engaged as an officer in that Army, whether he serves in one particular twenty-five years' period or another. Which twenty-five years' period he serves in should have no bearing whatever or the matter of pension. It is an absolutely illogical state of affairs that the pension which an ex-officer or his widow or his dependants get should depend on whether his service was between one particular period of years or another. To bring in yet another anomaly, as is now apparently being done—and it appears to be a retrospective anomaly at that—seems to be adding fuel to the fire.
Three aspects strike me in connection with this particular question. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys has explained, is that pension rates in 1919 were based on the cost of living. When the cost of living went up, the pension was supposed to go up also. On the occasions when the cost of living went down—and in my experience such occasions have been very rare—the pension would go down, and so on. Now it so happened that the cost of living did go down—at least, according to the computations of the Board of Trade—in or about the year 1933. And down, with great celerity, went the pensions of the retired officers, the widows and the rest. From then on, the cost of living began to rise. But pensions did not rise. In fact, in 1935, as I understand, pensions were fixed at a level 9½ per cent. below that of 1919.
The second aspect of this matter which strikes me is this. Officers who retired after September 1, 1950, receive more than those who retired before. On what basis of logic, or common sense, can this be justified? Does an officer who retired on August 31, 1950, eat less than one who retired on September 1, 1950? Does he wear fewer clothes? Does his fuel cost him less? Does his housing cost him less? If he has to educate children, are the school fees less for the officer who retired on August 31, 1950, than for the officer who retired on September 1, 1950? Surely the Treasury, if they are going to make distinctions, should not make absurd distinctions of this kind. Personally, I do not think it is a good thing to make distinctions in pensions. There may well be distinctions by reason

1099
of rank, of course, but there certainly ought not to be distinctions relating to the time when the service was given, because, as I have pointed out, all service is equally valuable so far as the country is concerned. At all events, it is not within the scope or the competence of the officer to make a decision affecting this matter. So, as I have said, this distinction seems even more absurd and illogical than most.
The third aspect which strikes me in regard to this question is that we have two types of service in this country—and I am using the term in its highest sense. The first is the Naval, Military or Air Service, and the other is the Civil Service. Since 1948, Civil Service pay, I understand, has been increased three times. As the pensions of civil servants and their widows are dependent upon the Civil Service pay, that means that Civil Service pensions have been increased three times in the last three years. Why has there been no increase at all in the pensions of officers of the Armed Services? I am not decrying our civil servants. I believe that the British Civil Service is the finest in the world, but he would be a bold man who would say that service in a chair in Whitehall is of greater moment to the State than service in Korea, or in the last war. Certainly, in the case of service in Whitehall one would imagine that the risk to life and limb is nothing like so great. I am afraid the real reason for the present state of affairs is that in this country we have never treated old soldiers with the consideration they ought to have. This goes for all soldiers at all times, however far back you go in history.
We on this side of the House would most certainly support a movement to recognise adequately the gallant service of these old soldiers, and in this I feel certain that we have the support of the noble and gallant Earl who is going to reply for the Government. No one, I am sure, could possibly wish to do more for his old comrades than he who led them with such gallantry and success out of Dunkirk, out of Burma, and in North Africa and Italy. I am certain that the noble and gallant Earl is on our side, however much he may have to talk from a brief here. I would ask him to throw aside the brief, if he can, and to answer from his heart, and to give to the old
1100
soldiers who have served their King, their Queen and their country with such gallantry in the past the consideration which is warranted by their great merits.

THE SUDAN
3.37 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords I hope the House will allow me to interrupt for a few moments this interesting discussion in order to make two statements that are now being made in another place by my right honourable friend. The first statement is on the Sudan and the second is on the arrest of seven former Nazis in the British Zone of Germany. As regards the Sudan, the House will remember that negotiations with the Egyptian Government about the introduction of self-government into the Sudan have now been going on for over two months. As my right honourable friend stated in another place on December 8, this had meant an unfortunate delay in the time-table which we had hoped it would be possible to follow, but the suggestions made by the Egyptian Government involved extensive changes in the Self-Government Statute which was accepted by the Sudanese Legislative Assembly last spring, and we naturally had to consider them very carefully. I am glad to say that agreement has been reached with the Egyptian Government on a large number of the points at issue, and that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Cairo was able to submit to the Egyptian Government on January 12 the text of a draft Agreement.
The negotiations have been complicated by the fact that various Sudanese political Parties have negotiated a number of differing agreements with representatives of the Egyptian Government. Her Majesty's Government are not, of course, a party to these agreements, but they have naturally taken note of their contents as expressing the views of various groups. The differences between the agreements, and the fact that no representatives of the Southern Sudan have taken part in them, underline the importance of bringing into existence as soon as possible a Sudanese Parliament in which the views of all sections of the Sudanese population can be heard. As the House is probably aware, the chief difficulty has been about the safeguards which were put into the draft Self-Government Statute, and approved by the Sudanese Legislative

1101
Assembly, giving the Governor-General special powers to protect the interests of the Southern provinces. I must make it clear that Her Majesty's Government have not proposed to add to these provisions. But it was to a Constitution containing these safeguards that the Southern representatives agreed, and we do not think they should be removed without the voice of the Southern population being heard in the matter.
I regret that our attitude on this should have given rise to suspicions that we wish to detach the southern provinces from the north. Nothing could be further from the truth. The preservation of the unity of the Sudan depends on willing co-operation and mutual confidence among the various sections of the population; and, in our view, nothing will contribute more to this than to show the southern population at the outset that their wishes will be taken into consideration in the settlement of matters of vital importance to them.
3.40 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for his Statement. I sincerely hope there will be a happy outcome and that in the result we shall achieve an agreement with Egypt. It is difficult to follow all these matters, and I should like to ask the noble Marquess, though I do not want an immediate answer, whether he will consider the desirability of publishing a White Paper on this subject, so that when we get to grips with this problem we may have at our disposal material in the light of which we can make our suggestions.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, certainly that point shall be considered. Probably at some stage a White Paper will be essential, but whether that time has yet been reached I would hesitate to say definitely at this moment, in view of the negotiations which are now going on. But the suggestion will certainly be borne in mind.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, would it be possible for the noble Marquess, who must have all these matters in his mind, to say exactly what is the point of difference on the Southern Sudan between the view of Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian-Sudanese agreement?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it is not quite so brief a point and one capable of such concise handling as would make it possible to embark upon it as a result of this Statement. We are having a debate on Foreign Affairs at no very distant date, and I cannot help thinking it would be more satisfactory to everybody if we could deal with the matter at a little more length then, rather than attempt to do so after a Statement and across the Floor of the House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, yes; but the purpose of making a Statement is surely to inform Parliament and the exact point of difference must be in the minds of Ministers. I am informed for example, that the representation of the three Southern provinces in the new Legislative Assembly would be the same, but there is a difference about the powers of the Governor-General and how far they are controlled. All these matters must be in the mind of the noble Marquess. Could he give us a little help?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I do not want to be unhelpful in the least, but these rasher delicate negotiations are going on at the present time and the situation changes rapidly. I would much rather, with the leave of the House, not enter into a discussion at this stage, even to the disappointment of the, noble Viscount.

GERMANY: ARREST OF FORMER NAZIS
3.44 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I now make the Statement on Germany? The House will be aware from the announcement issued on January 15 that seven former leading Nazis have been arrested in the British Zone of Germany. They were arrested, with my right honourable friend's authority, on the instruction of the United Kingdom High Commissioner, acting under the powers reserved in the Revised Occupation Statute as now in force. They have been detained for further investigation with a view to ascertaining to what extent their activities and their contacts within and without the Federal Republic at present constitute a threat to the security of the Allied forces.
This investigation must take some time. Until it has been completed, it

1103
will not be possible to make a final statement about the scope and nature of the group's activities. The information already available to the British authorities, on the basis of which the arrests were made, suggested that the men were plotting eventually to regain power in Western Germany and were propagating anti-Western views and policies. While the information so far in our possession was not such as to establish that the activities of this small minority of unrepentant Nazis were an immediate threat to the democratic order in Germany, their potential danger in the future could not be ignored. My right honourable friend accordingly decided that the British authorities could take immediate steps to bring these activities into the open and to get all the further information we could with a view to averting any such danger.
There is one further point I should like to emphasise. The fact that the British authorities, holding, as they still do, special powers and responsibilities in Germany, were able in the present case to act in good time on the information available to them does not in any way imply lack of confidence on our part in the German Federal Government. Noble Lords may have seen a statement by the German Federal Chancellor yesterday, in which he made it very clear where he and his Government stand in respect to the possible resurgence of Nazism in Germany. I have no doubt that the views he expressed on this subject are those of the main political Parties and of the German trade union movement, which recently issued a statement welcoming the measures so far taken by the United Kingdom High Commissioner. The German Federal Chancellor was informed of our intended action before the arrests were made, and the results of our further investigations will be discussed with him as soon as we are in a position to do so.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we certainly agree that it is most desirable to take every step to avoid a recrudescence of German nationalism. On the other hand, I understand that these men have been arrested and that no charges have been preferred against them. That means
1104
that this House would like to be kept informed about what takes place in regard to this matter, and I hope that as soon as the noble Marquess has any further statement to make to the House he will give us an opportunity of learning what the results of that inquiry may be.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, that I certainly shall do.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I hesitate to ask the noble Marquess another question, but suppose the Bonn Contract had been ratified, as was urged by the Government before Christmas, would these men have been liable to arrest?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The matter would then have been in the hands of the German Government and not in ours.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would the German Government have had power to take this necessary action under the Bonn Contract?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think that if the Bonn Contract had been in force, they would have been able to take action. We retain certain powers under the Bonn Contract but, so far as my recollection goes of the somewhat complex documents, the Federal Government would have been in a position to act themselves if the contractual arrangements had been ratified at this moment.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I take it that at the present time the German Government would not have power to intervene? I put that question to the noble Marquess to remove any suggestion that they should have intervened.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Information having been obtained, action was taken under the special powers which are vested in the British High Commissioner, by virtue of the amended Occupation Statute, which have been obtaining in our Zone, and which, I think the noble Lord will agree, were rightly used in this particular instance.

RETIRED OFFICERS' PENSIONS
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest, though a vicarious one. I have no pension, but I have a son and two grandsons who are looking forward some day to drawing pensions. I wish to add only one point to what the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, has said: and may I say that, as your Lordships know well, there could be nobody more competent or better qualified than the noble Lord to raise the point? Whenever I speak to young officers or any young National Service men advising them to become regular soldiers, I always receive the same answer—that the Service offers no financial future On which a man can live and bring up a family. It is a really important point, and I hope that the authorities will bear it in mind. When so many occupations in the country are being paid what is called a living wage it is a great misfortune that the Services of the Crown should have the reputation of giving to those who serve in them an inadequate pension.
3.51 p.m.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I should like to support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, has said in moving his Motion to-day, and I should like to express to him on behalf, at any rate, of the Service to which I have the honour to belong, our deep appreciation and gratitude for what he has done, not only to-day but on previous occasions, to fight the battle of the old, retired officers, a battle which has already had some effect. I am sure, the noble Lord will realise that he has earned the deep gratitude of hundreds of retired officers and their wives and families. How sad it is that the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, should have to move such a motion to-day at all! How sad it is to think that in these days retired officers should have to group themselves together to form associations, such as the Officers' Association and the Officers' Pension Society, in order, in their own words,
"to ensure that officers' interests are not neglected by the State, as has been customary in the past"!
Speaking as one who is not in receipt of a pension, and who therefore has no personal
1106
interest in the matter, I would ask: Is it not a blot on the administrative record of the country that old, loyal, State servants should have to create such societies in order to obtain justice for their brother officers?
I find deep feeling among retired officers and their families and, like many of your Lordships, I have had many pathetic letters from them, always couched in a reasonable tone and with an understanding of the country's financial difficulties. Such letters have expressions like this: "Is it just that the State should not carry out its 1919 contract?" Or another, from a wife: "One feels that one has been cheated." What we are up against to-day is not Governments or personalities, although the Governments of both Parties have so far been unable to accept the requests of the Services for justice to their retired officers. What we are up against is certain Whitehall principles which govern everybody who has to speak in their name, and it is about those principles that I should like to address your Lordships this afternoon. I am not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, into the detail of these matters, because after his clear and admirable speech that is unnecessary.
The first phase to which I would refer is the fixing of the pension rate in 1919 at the 1914 rates of pay plus a 20 per cent. increase for the cost of living, to vary up and down with that cost of living, as has been said. It has been claimed that the 1914 rate was a fair basis. But I would call your Lordships' attention to a fact that may surprise you—namely, that the rates of emolument for Service officers in 1914 had not been changed for between eighty and a hundred years. Do your Lordships realise that it was not until 1840 that the Duke of Wellington set up a committee in order that he might represent to his then Majesty that the pay of lieutenants should be (as he called it) "substantially increased" to 10s. a day? His Majesty graciously approved that suggestion, and that 10s. a day remained as the pay of the lieutenant in the Navy until 1920, eighty years later. It may surprise your Lordships to know that the emolument of a Flag Officer in the Navy was settled in 1816 and, again, was not altered until 1920. It has been calculated that if the emoluments of the Services in the nineteenth century had

1107
been increased steadily, as time went on, in accordance with the cost of living, and the salaries, wages and everything else in civil life, the rates of pay for the Services in 1914 would have been nearly doubled. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that in 1919, when for the first time for almost a century the pay and pensions of officers were slightly increased, the lowest possible basis was taken on which to establish those new rates. Thereafter, as the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, has told your Lordships, up till about 1933 or 1934, the cost of living fell, and the pensions fell also.
The second phase to which I would refer is the 1935 phase, when, by what can only be called a smart financial deal, the pensions were fixed, at a time when the cost of living was almost at its lowest point for twenty years. And no longer were the pensions to be raised or lowered according to the cost of living figure. Possibly it was not obvious to the Government, or to those who were trying to hold the defences of the Services against the Government, that the cost of living was soon to rise steeply, or that a Second World War was coming which would increase the cost of living by 60 per cent. Fortunately for the taxpayer, the State is advised by a very astute and able Department. But there was no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, has said, that in 1935 the State started dealing again with the old retired officers on the principle of "Heads I win, tails you lose," and the retired officers have lost ever since. Was that a wise or a fair policy? Surely, when the cost of living soared, the State, as a model employer, should automatically have increased the pensions of the old officers who were so faithful and loyal and who had fought for their country and devoted their lives to its service. It should have happened automatically. The State should have looked back and said: "It is impossible to leave these old officers on their scales of pensions when the whole world is upside down and the cost of living has soared to mountainous heights." Is it not unbelievable that these retired officers should have been told that pensions, lower even than those at the 1919 rate, would remain so up to the present day because, as these men have been told in answer to
1108
their letters of protest, it would increase the cost of living and cause inflation to raise them? I notice that that has not been said about many other increases of a far greater and more expensive nature which have been made in recent years.
The third phase was the 1946 phase, when a new and better pension code was introduced. The State refused to apply it retrospectively to those who had retired before that year. Not to make that new rate of pension retrospective was to heap insult upon injury to the old 1919 type of officer. It was truly an act of great injustice to those pensioners. Can one imagine, for instance, a rise being made in the rate of old age pensions and it being made applicable only to the new aged and not to the old? But that is exactly what has happened in this case. Would there not have been an outcry throughout the country? Would such an Act ever have passed through Parliament? It is amazing that, with that example, the Government should still refuse the justice for which we have asked for so long.
The last phase was the 1951 phase, when a further increase of pensions was made for officers retiring after September, 1950. That, also, was made non-retrospective. The interesting point is that the reason which was given in 1950 for increasing the rate of pension which had already been increased in 1946 was that it was to stimulate recruiting. But why was it necessary to increase the rate of pension in order to stimulate recruiting? There can be only one reason—that the pension was not considered good enough by the ordinary man. So it was increased. Yet the old officers were left on the rates of thirty years before.
I should like to say a few words about what is called the non-retrospective principle. That brings in the objectionable principle which they have in the Treasury of "drawing the line." It is very necessary to draw the line on certain occasions, but it is wrong, unsafe and unjust to apply that principle to people's salaries in such a way as to create an unevenness and give a sense of unfairness to those to whom it is applied. I had a letter this morning from an officer in one of Her Majesty's Services, who writes: "I had to retire fifty-five days before the line was drawn. Consequently, for the rest of my life I receive £100 a year less

1109
than I should if the rule had been made a bit later. Not only that, but as I had to educate my children I had to commute £100 a year of my pension, and so I am £200 a year down on what I might have been." That is an example of the evils of non-retrospection. Another evil is the thoroughly wrong example the State gave to the country when in 1935,they made the new rates of pension retrospective to the officers who had retired before 1935. If the non-retrospective action had been carried out then, the officers who had retired before 1935 would have had their pensions left as they were or, the 1919 rate, plus the cost of living increase in accordance with their agreement. But on that occasion the State said: "No, we cannot afford to lose by non-retrospection. We can bring in that principle only when it is to the advantage of the State to do so." That is the only possible conclusion that any man can come to.
The noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, stressed the point that the original agreement in 1919 included the word "will." The word "shall" was issued in Naval and Air Force orders. The Naval order used the word "will" when it first came out; the Air Force order was issued in 1924 with the word "will" and not "may," as was the Army order of 1931. As the noble Lord explained, the original order having stated that "pensions will be changed" according to the cost of living, showed that there was a definite contract with those officers that for the rest of their lives they would have their pensions raised or lowered with the cost of living. Therefore there has been a breach of contract. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence said in another place last November that the non-retrospective policy had been consistently followed, he uttered what would appear to most people, to put it mildly, to be a terminological inexactitude.
Now I want to say a word about the two excuses which have been made by successive Governments for not giving these increases in pensions. The first is the excuse that to increase retired officers' pensions would mean reconsidering other State pensions. The noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, has already dealt with that matter but I should like to add this: it is absolutely unimaginable how the State is able to say that a cast-iron principle governing pensions, pay or anything else
1110
in a service like the Civil Service must apply also to all the fighting Services. That has always been one of the snags in Whitehall, as I know well. You cannot compare the two forms of living. The civil officer lives a steady life in the same area—probably in the same building—until he is sixty or sixty-five. Whether he is ill and whether he does his work well or not so well, there he remains, and he does not retire on his pension until he is sixty. He is able to educate his children and put money by and get everything finished before retiring. And when such a man retires he has money in the bank. Good luck to him! But how different is the Service officer's life—wandering about the world, never knowing three months ahead where he and his family will be, unable to buy a house, and then, perhaps, having to retire, as 50 per cent. or more do, before he is fifty. He has still to complete the education of his children out of his pension. As I have explained already, one officer has written to me to say that he had to commute his pension to complete the education of his children. It is no answer to say that it is impossible to do justice to retired officers because that would mean raising other pensions, any more than it would be relevant to say that it ought to be done because it has been done in the case of old-age, pensioners. The things are quite separate.
Then there was the statement made by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Alexander, that the financial commitments which might well follow would prevent the Government from making any such payment retrospective. Here let me say that, if I criticise what the noble Earl says, none of my remarks could possibly have the slightest application to the noble Earl himself. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, have said, he has the respect not only of this House but of every fighting man in the Services, because of his absolute sense of justice and fair play to those under his command. He has also their affection, I know. Therefore, if I criticise his statements it is because I know that he is not necessarily saying what he himself thinks is likely to happen. But is it reasonable to say that the country cannot at present afford to give a square deal to these old pensioners? I submit that it is not.

1111
I would call attention to two facts. The first is that the noble and gallant Earl, in his statement to the House, said that in view of the present financial situation the Government were unable to do anything in this matter. I would refer also to the speech made by his Under-Secretary, Mr. Nigel Birch, in another place on December 11, when he said that he could not hold out any substantial hope, despite what he described as a "weighty case." If there is a weighty case, as the Government have admitted, and if it is a fact that this" weighty case" cannot be met because of the financial position at the present time, then is not the question which I asked a pertinent one: can the State not afford to be just? It is simply that. The Government say, in effect, "We admit the justice of your claim; we realise you have a weighty and, indeed, unanswerable case, but we cannot afford what you ask." That is the argument so far. I ask your Lordships again, is that right, fair or just? And I ask again, can we not afford to be just?
I know that, as has been said, the recent increases in pensions for widows have given great satisfaction to many poor and miserably-paid widows. But as the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys has said, it is only a step in the right direction: it is not more than that. After this belated but valuable action, it is, of course, difficult to expect at present everything that we should like to see done for the retired officer. It may be financially difficult at present to do all that ought to be done, but something, can be done, and something ought to be done immediately. The first thing to do, taking fully into consideration the fact that the nation is hard up, is to do immediate justice to the older pensioners—those who retired before 1946. This was a point which was made strongly by Lord Jeffreys. It could be done by increasing their meagre pensions to the 1946 rate. It was stated by the noble and gallant Earl's Under-Secretary in another place that the cost of doing this would be £370,000 for the first year, on a steadily diminishing basis. That is not a great sum to-day, but it would be sufficient to clear the national conscience in this matter. In any event, a great part of it would come back to the nation in income tax.
1112
The second step that can be taken is to accept the principle of raising all retired officers' pensions to the 1951 rate as soon as possible. It is not right to say that this cannot be done. If it is fair and right, if the principle upon which pensions are to be awarded in future is to be such as to give satisfaction, to bring in recruits and to encourage men to re-engage, then that principle should be adopted. Its acceptance would show honesty of purpose. The matter should not be left in the air. If the principle is right and just, it should be pressed in this House, and it should be accepted. I understand that the cost of carrying out this suggestion would be £2 million for the first year. Let me point out, however, that this item would vanish entirely within thirty years. The State has made a good deal of money out of retired officers in the past eighteen years; and in the opinion of these men, that money has been made unwisely and without any foundation of moral justice.
It is not being asked at present that the money which has been denied for so long should be paid. It might be thought that that would be a reasonable step, though it is probably impracticable at the moment. But the fact that so much has been withheld from these retired officers for so long is surely a very considerable factorin the scale of justice. Only public pressure will move the State when it digs itself in. I would urge your Lordships to use your great influence, individually and collectively, to insist that justice should be done, not only for its own sake but in the truest interests of the honour of the country.
4.19 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords as one who has retired from the Navy, without a pension—and certainly not having any intention of claiming one—and who is still on the Emergency List, I feel that I can support this Motion with all the strength at my command. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with the various details of pension increases, which have already been so well covered by previous speakers. I have little doubt that Her Majesty's Government are as anxious as your Lordships that all retired Service officers, and not just certain classes, should have a fair deal. On the one hand, however, I

1113
think there is before Her Majesty's Government the grim spectre of financial difficulty, while, on the other, there is a feeling that, if they accede to this claim, they may be jockeyed into a position in which they might be, shall I say, called upon to accede to somewhat similar claims from people and organisations in other walks of life. Surely these are two spectres which, at first sight, appear very much more formidable than they in fact are.
Let me deal for a moment with the first one, which is really, of course, the question of inflation. Surely the noble and gallant Earl who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government does not seriously contend that the payment of the full increase in pensions which has been suggested, which amounts to something like £2 million, would make any appreciable difference to the value of the pound and thereby cause inflation. In any case, as was pointed out by the noble arid gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, this figure will be progressively reduced year by year, by death. This figure of £2 million is, of course, the cost of raising the retired pay of all officers of all three Services who retired before September 1, 1950, to the new rates of 1951, and I maintain that nothing less than full payment will bring justice to these retired officers. It has been suggested that a compromise might be made by raising the pensions of officers who retired after December, 1945 (which, of course, are governed by the 1946 code), and bringing them up to the 1951 level. This compromise would certainly be a welcome improvement; it would relieve a great deal of hardship which undoubtedly exists at present, although I do not think it would go far enough. The cost of this improvement, I understand, is in the neighbourhood of £370,000. Does the noble Earl who is going to reply really maintain that even that small figure would have any effect upon inflation, as in fact was mentioned by his representative in another place?
What about the second difficulty, or, as I should prefer to put it, the injustice, of trying to align Service retired pay with other State pensions? A number of noble Lords have already mentioned this point, but I want to emphasise it a little further, and perhaps in a little more detail. In the first place, the average State employee, as distinct from the Service officer, lives under very much more comfortable
1114
conditions: he is not moved about from place to place and from country to country as the Service officers are. The State employee, if he wishes to, is able to purchase a house on the instalment system, and to live in it, so that when he retires he has a comfortable home to retire to. Moreover, he probably has some savings behind him, but that is not so in the case of the Service officer. His family, perhaps, spend most of their lives living in rooms, often at exorbitant rentals: and in many cases he is faced with the upkeep ultimately of two homes. As a result, by the time he retires his savings are likely to be nil.
I am afraid that I cannot accept the arguments of Her Majesty's Government, which have been put forward in another place, that there is not much difference between Service retired pay and other State pensions. In fact, I say there is a very great difference indeed, and one. which ought to be recognised. I hope that those arguments will not be used today in your Lordships' House. It costs an officer who retires before a given date just as much to live as one who retires after that date. There is no justice in having three codes of retired pay for different retiring dates. The policy of successive Governments has been not to make the pay codes retrospective, but that does not apply to the stabilisation in 1935. That was applied not merely to all future retiring officers or to those who had retired a few months previously, but to all officers who came within the terms of the 1919 code—indeed, for a retrospective period of about sixteen years. I entirely fail to understand the arguments that have been put forward in another place on this matter. We all know that the voice of the Treasury must sometimes be harsh and insistent, but must it always be paramount? Surely some justice is due to these retiring officers. I would go so far as to say that if the country wishes to keep a high grade corps of officers, they must be fairly treated. I also suggest that Her Majesty's Government should realize that officers of the same rank and length of service ought to receive approximately the same rates of retirement pay, irrespective of the date of their retirement. I am sure that the noble and gallant Earl the Minister of Defence has every sympathy with the retired officer, and I hope that to-day he

1115
will accept the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys.
4.26 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to echo the gratitude which has been expressed, and which I am sure is shared by your Lordships in all quarters of the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, for again bringing up this subject to which he has devoted so much time and effort in another place. The issue to-day, I submit to your Lordships, is not as to the distressful plight of these officers. That has already been admitted by the Government spokesman in another place when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 509, Col. 1843]:
"I fully admit that these retired officers are in great difficulty."
That is admitted The issue which we are considering to-day is: Will the Government help and, if so, to what extent? The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Alexander, is to wind up this debate, and I hope that from Her Majesty's Government's spokesman we can look forward to some advance on the stand and the arguments used on the last occasion when this matter was debated in another place, December 19. I hope, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that the reasoning and the arguments of the Minister will be rather different from those which were deployed on that occasion. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Mr. Birch, took his stand on arguments which will not bear close examination and which, indeed, are not difficult to demolish. I trust, therefore, that we shall not have a repetition of those arguments this afternoon.
I have carefully analysed the arguments on the stand of Her Majesty's Government, as evinced by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. I have summarised those four arguments put forward on behalf of the Government. The first has been touched on already, the refusal based on the policy of successive Governments to apply retrospective improvements in retired codes. I am not going to re-argue the 1935 settlement, nor talk about its most unfortunate consequences—that has already been ably done by the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield—but I do argue as to whether it should continue
1116
as a standard of payment for retired officers.
Taking the cost of living figure as being 100 in 1914, in 1935 it was 153, and in 1952, 235. When confronted with these facts, the Government are rather inclined to say, "Well, you know, these officers are not really much worse off than civil servants who have retired." But stabilisation did not apply to the lower grades of the Civil Service. According to the Tomlin Report (with which some of your Lordships are no doubt familiar) although stabilisation applied to the higher grades of civil servants it did not apply to lower grades; and, on the 1950 code, the Parliamentary Secretary admitted that one of the purposes of that improved code was to look into the future, with the purpose of stimulating recruiting. But to succeed in the purpose of stimulating recruiting means not only that justice must be done for future retirements, but that justice must be done, and must seem to be done, to those past retirements with which we are dealing to-day.
The Parliamentary Secretary's next stand was when he said that the effects of inflation were "capricious." Then he proceeded to lump together Service and civil pensioners, annuitants and those who draw fixed interest incomes. He lumped them all together, saying that it was not possible for the Government to put these people back into the position they were in before, and that it would be invidious to select one class. My Lords, I have never heard a weaker argument than that. Surely the Government have as much responsibility towards those they employed during the best years of their lives as towards holders of Government bonds and Government stocks. Unlike those others whom the Parliamentary Secretary lumped together and then dumped, as it were, on the floor of another place, saying, "We cannot do much for them," these particular officers were State servants who were employed for a limited number of years of their lives. They did not get a guarantee of employment up to sixty, as do civil servants; very often these officers retired at fifty. And, as other noble Lords have said, the type of life those officers led was a very different and a much more dangerous one than that of those who are guaranteed State employment up to sixty.

1117
The third stand of the Parliamentary Secretary was when he said that all increased expenditure adds to the dangers of a renewal of inflation. I submit that that is a sledge-hammer argument to crack a very small nut. We know the policy of wage restraint followed by Her Majesty's Government. But miners, railway men, engineers, dockers and civil servants have all had and are having rises to meet the higher cost of living. The justice of their claims has been admitted by Her Majesty's Government; the rises have taken place with the approval of Her Majesty's Government. They have put hundreds of millions on to the wage bill. Quite rightly, these claims have been admitted. All this has increased the purchasing power of the nation. We are suggesting that to bring up the officers' scale to the 1951 level would cost approximately £2 million. Between 1949 and1951 the increase in the miners' pay bill was £40 million. This year, as compared with 1949, the wage bill will be up by approximately £80 million. The strength of those making these successful claims is such that no Government could possibly resist acknowledging the justice of those claims. The efforts of these men are needed in our national industrial life. They have strong organised bodies. They can, as it were, fend for themselves. It is the weak, the few and the old who have to look to their old employers whom they served faithfully, to sustain them and to help them in their cause.
Finally, the Parliamentary Secretary took his stand on that very trite general truism, that one concession loads to another, so that in the long run any concession will prejudice the conditions of those benefiting. That reminds me of the mother who is eating a nice chocolate cake. Her little child says, "Mother, may I have a slice?," and the mother replies, "No, you are really much better without it"—andgoes on eating it herself. I cannot remember that argument being used in regard to the claims of other classes of those on the State pay roll. There have been increases in pay for Members of Parliament; there have been increases in judges' pensions, and there have been concessions in regard to higher civil servants. Quite rightly, all their conditions have been improved. The truth is that those who are serving are
1118
assisted, those who will retire are assisted, but those who have retired, like these officers, are left out. Cannot we appeal to the Government not to forget the old horse put out to grass? He has rendered faithful service. There are not many of these men and they are not powerful; they have no great powerful union to force forward their case. They look to the country that they served, and not, I hope, without prospect that to-day their plea will be recognised by Her Majesty's Government, even at this late hour.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I must tell your Lordships at once that I am one of those who draw retired pay under the Royal Warrant of 1919, and therefore I must ask your Lordships' Indulgence if I speak on this Motion at all. But I can, I think, unreservedly support what my noble friend Lord Jeffreys has said about those officers who retired before the first war, and whose case he put with such force. I would rather talk about the matter in a more general way. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who has just sat down, has dealt fairly fully with the question of the inflationary effect of any move towards increasing pensions. There are one or two things to be said about that point. In the first place, that statement is always being made, and always has been made, just as is the statement that "England is going to the dogs"—as she always was. Some of your Lordships may have read recently Lord Haig's Diaries. If you have, you may have noticed that in 1919, when Lord Haig was fighting for disability pensions (not retired pay), it is recorded that Mr. Lloyd George said that he was confronted with difficulty: that memories were short and it might be difficult to get the disability pensions in the way he would like; that there was much unrest about, that miners were demanding an extra shilling, and that this was a bad time to go to the House and ask for a large sum of money. As the French say, "The more it changes, the more it is the same thing," and the less weight, therefore, can we attach to that particular argument.
The whole question is really one of degree. Of course, all the arguments against inflation, whether directed towards retired pay or anything else, are sound in themselves. That is quite clear. We

1119
know that any code of pay, whether for those serving or those who have retired, that is based on the cost of living, has its dangers—as we see in places like Australia. But there is another set of arguments. There is the argument that a pension is given in order that those people who have served the State shall not be in want when they have ceased to serve the State. The matter to which I think Government spokesmen have never given any clue in what they have said up to now is at what point the arguments in favour of increasing pensions outweigh the arguments for not causing inflation. After all, if one could imagine the horrible idea of the pound going the way of the mark, or even the way of the franc, one would see that there would come a time when a 1919 pension would not be sufficient to keep the pensioner alive, as presumably it was intended to do. Remember, we have not finished with inflation yet. No doubt we are getting the better of it, but we have not yet got the better of it, and inflation in some form may still go on.
So what do the Government really intend should happen? When the pensions cease to provide sustenance and life for those who are getting them, will the Government accept a Motion on the lines of that of my noble friend, or will they take the line that was followed in Germany after the first war, and in this country in the 18th century—namely, let the matter run, and let those starve who must? Or are we, in these days of the Welfare State, to say, "This is what the Assistance Board is for; and those who cannot afford to live in any other way must go to the Assistance Board and must spend the rest of their lives in an institution"? I think that if your Lordships will follow this matter to its logical conclusion you will see that we arrive at that point. We have been moving towards it steadily, and sooner or later we shall arrive there. It is with that background that we must consider the very forceful arguments that my noble friend has put up to-day, directed to the 1919 Warrant and the earlier Warrants.
But let us come back to this question of inflation. Of course it is undesirable that anyone should be paid money by the State for not doing any work, if in fact he is still capable of working for the State.
1120
And so we come back to the set of arguments which are brought forward to the effect that, because of the nature of the service, officers have to retire early, and therefore they cannot expect to get big pensions. That is begging a very big question, and begging a question that ought to be considered urgently. After all, no one disputes the fact that it is not now possible for an officer or other rank in the Forces to end his service in middle life, educate his children, and keep himself alive under proper conditions of living, if he does not succeed in getting work when he leaves the Service. We all know that. Yet we still have conditions in which this barrier, this distinction of treatment between Service men and the civil servants, persists. All the briefing which is done, instead of emphasising the community of those who serve Her Majesty, seems to emphasise the difference between those who put on uniform and those who do not—and that quite regardless of the state of affairs in which we live to-day, whereby there can be no operational division in war time between civilian and Service personnel. The existence of Civil Defence alone shows that quite plainly. But if we can get to a state of affairs in which anyone who enters Her Majesty's service—whether he enters the Armed Forces or enters the Civil Service in some form—can be assured of guaranteed work up to the pensionable age of sixty or sixty-five, if he wants it, then we shall have removed a great deal of this problem of pensions for the future.
There remain to deal with only those categories of officers and other ranks who are now too old to be re-employed. We have two problems. The first is that of accepting the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Jeffreys. Secondly, we have the problem of seeing what can be done to make this difficulty of pensions and early retirement one which will fall less hardly in the future, and so will not provoke a demand for adequate pensions to be given to those who have to retire before the normal retiring age of sixty or sixty-five. If my noble and gallant friend Lord Alexander can do anything to introduce a new outlook in Whitehall on this matter of giving guaranteed employment to officers of the Services up to the age of sixty or sixty-five, he will not merely have gone a long way to remove this trouble for the future

1121
but he will also have introduced confidence and hope into the minds of a great many of those still serving who have children to educate, and who are dreading the day when they may have to go out and look for a new job. They are dreading it because they fear that they will find that, through the service which they have given, their time has been spent in such a way that at the most critical period of their children's education they themselves are thrown on the world having had no opportunity of saving and so possessing little means of paying for it. So we see how important this question is. It has been truly said in this House before that it is important not merely from the point of view of the officers themselves but from the point of view of showing the Services as in attractive career for those who hope to join. So let us see whether as a result of this debate we can not only deal with the difficulty with which Lord Jeffreys' Motion is concerned but also see whether steps can be taken to remove that problem for the future.
4.45 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships in support of Lord Jeffreys' Motion I should point out that I myself am a serving officer, and therefore should eventually benefit by the later 1946 rates of pension. But I think it may be useful to your Lordships if I deal with one aspect of the case. Since the war I have been concerned to a very large extent with the training of young officers, and have observed the effect of various measures, both political and military, aimed to encourage the right type of young man to take a regular commission in the Army. The 1946 increases of pay and pensions were the largest of the inducements and were specifically referred to in the White Paper as such.
There is no doubt that the increase in pay and pensions did give a much-needed stimulus to the recruiting of young officers—and very necessary it was, not only for them but also, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, says, for the middle-piece married officer, for whom it was essential in order to avoid complete insolvency. That was proved at the time by the examination of specimen budgets. Nevertheless, the omission of any consideration for those officers who had retired under the 1919 Code, many of them
1122
from families with long Service traditions, had the reverse effect. And these are the men, the older men, the parents and the relations, to whom we look to encourage the younger generation to carry on that tradition which is so important to our Services to-day. For we do need most urgently the right type of young officers, who have been brought up in those unselfish traditions of our Services. The calculated omission of fair treatment for surviving regulars, to whom the country owes so much, results in disillusion and bitterness which is reflected in the discouragement of their young relations and friends, when we should be able to look to them to be our greatest support. If the cost of living should again rise, why should they advise others to accept a repetition of the treatment which they themselves consider they have received?
If, however, the Government still feel unable to help this comparatively small number, I should like to see them give much more encouragement to, and sponsor, efforts to find suitable employment for these men—as has been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. And I should like to see them continue to do this for those coming out of the Services at an age which is too late to allow them to start a new career at the bottom. There is already in existence in the Army—andI think to a smaller extent in the Navy—an admirable scheme for the employment of a small number of retired officers in clerical and sedentary jobs in Service Departments. I have heard nothing but praise for this scheme. The officers earn money to augment their pension during the difficult period, for many, when their children are still being educated, and their military superiors get the benefit of experienced assistants to provide continuity: they are not moved away just as soon as they get to know the job well. If this scheme could he enlarged, not only would it help those officers whose cases we consider to-day but it would remove the main deterrent against a regular career in the Forces—the fear of being thrown out at an early age—as well as show that the country is not prepared callously to abandon to abject poverty those who fought for her in the last two great wars. One small last point which may be of interest to your Lordships is that in the United States of America this problem has also

1123
arisen. It is interesting to note that in the last increase in pay and pensions, they, like ourselves, omitted the officers who had retired some time before. But now a Bill is in course of preparation which will increase pensions retrospectively for the same category of officers of whom we are thinking today. Therefore I hope that something may be done, too, for our retired officers.
4.50 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I am sure there is no one in your Lordships' House who has not felt deeply moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, and by his effective advocacy of the cause of the officers of the Armed Services. In the course of the subsequent discussion some comparisons have been made between the comparatively cloistered lives of civil officers and the hard and difficult lives of officers of the Armed Forces. Perhaps I may claim that not all the civil officers have shared in the cloistered life of Whitehall. There are in this country a large number of civil officers who have served abroad, in India and in the Colonies. I should like to say, on behalf of my friends in the Civil Service, that I think there is no one amongst them who does not recognise that a serious injustice has been done to ex-officers of the Armed Forces. If it were a case between having to put right the difficulties that have been felt by civil officers in regard to their pensions or the difficulties felt by officers of the Armed Forces, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, has referred, I believe that all retired civil officers throughout the whole Commonwealth, whatever their service has been, would agree that the officers of the Armed Forces must have a prior claim. Here we have circumstances about which every civil officer would say that there has been an almost incredible breach of good faith.
We have the advantage to-day of knowing that these questions can be discussed, and are being discussed, in an atmosphere very different from that in which they would have been discussed many years ago, years which some of us can still remember. The course of recent years has completely altered the attitude in which these questions are now approached. There was a time when
1124
those who approached these questions did so with the assumption that the pay and pensions of the officers of the Armed Services must be based on the fact that these officers were generally recruited from a class which felt that they need not seek a place in the more competitive, and consequently more remunerative, spheres of the professions and commerce, and that many of the men who were recruited as officers felt that their qualifications were not such as would win them a place in these competitive spheres. That attitude has completely altered. If the State seeks to secure the services of officers who can fulfil the requirements of the present day it must offer them pay and pensions on a basis that bears a much closer relation to that which prevails in a competitive market.
I feel that I may be taking a somewhat unpopular attitude to-day if I say that there are certain questions of principle here which affect not only the officers of the Armed Services but also the officers of the Civil Service. These questions enlarge the field of discussion and possibly increase the potential cost of any improvement that may have to be considered, but I am bound to point out that there are questions of principle in regard to pensions which vitally affect the Civil Service. Whatever we may think of prior claims of the Armed Forces in this respect, the claims of the civil officers cannot be overlooked. The civil officers of approximately the same standing who served in the home or Colonial or Indian Services suffer equally from the rapid fall in the value of money. If I refer to this matter now, it is because one does not have too many opportunities of representing their case.
I felt obliged to make some reference to it during the debate which took place last July in your Lordships' House. I put forward some considerations bearing on the claims of the higher grade of pensioners in these particular Services. The question arose during the discussion of a Bill for the provision of small supplementary pensions, owing to the increase in the cost of living, to pensioners with personal incomes that did not exceed the range of £500 to £550 a year. The Bill was subsequently passed as the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952. I pointed out then that there appeared to be no logical

1125
ground for limiting the small supplement—it was a very small one—to pensioners whose total income, including their pension, was not more than £550 with dependants and £425 without. If the disability from which they suffered arose from the fall in the value of money, that was a disability suffered equally by persons enjoying other scales of pension. I am bound to say that I did not receive a very encouraging reply from the noble Viscount. Lord Swinton, but I felt that perhaps his sense of obligation to the Treasury, for which he was answering, outweighed the natural humane impulse which I have seen him display as Minister in charge of other Departments of State.
The argument he then used was that, in the main, it was not reasonable to ask for an increase of pensions hitherto enjoyed by members of the Civil Service, as they represented the result of a contractual obligation on the part of the State as defined by law and that such a contract was equally binding on both parties. I should like to carry the logic of that argument, which is one likely to be used on other occasions, a little further. There is an element of implied contract in regard to both pay and pensions. The State has not used that argument when it has determined, as it has on several occasions, to increase the pay of its acting servants on account of the fall in the value of money. A notable instance of this, recently referred to in your Lordships' House, was in regard to the increase in the pay of civil servants in 1948, which had effect, I think, from 1945. One may well ask why, if the argument of contract is not used in the one case—namely, in the case of pay—it should be used in the case of pensions.
Of course, it is a mistake to rely on the argument of contract at all. The civil servants to whom I have referred have not interpreted their own relations with the State in terms of contract: they have regarded them as obligations of honour and good faith, which override all considerations of their own private convenience or personal gain. The true criterion to be employed in such cases—andit will apply equally, I think, to the Armed Services—is not a reference to contract at all. There is only one criterion which can be profitably employed, namely, will a concession made by the State to its former servants in respect of past service help to maintain
1126
its reputation as a considerate and conscientious employer and, consequently, enable it to recruit men of the type it requires—men whose own conception of duty will serve to maintain the traditions which have distinguished their predecessors in the past? That is the question. It is equally a question, on the other hand, whether the sight of its former servants living in financial conditions which compare so unfavourably with those of men who have held less responsible positions in industry, in commerce or in the professions, will prejudice the course of future recruitment. There is no doubt that that is the question as some of the major banks saw it when they recently gave a general increase to all their previous servants in view of the heavy fall in the value of money.
It is because the State must face this essential question that I and many others recommend that the whole subject of civil pensions, at all events, should be examined by a Commission competent to advise on issues of this nature. It is not merely the general principle which requires treatment at their hands, for the whole pensions system, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore said, is full of anomalies. As has so recently been pointed out, it is an anomaly that the pension of officers in the Home Services who received the recent increases of pay dating back to 1945 should benefit by sums which may amount to as much as £350 a year, or even £500 a year, over those received by officers who retired in the previous year. It is an anomaly that in recently granting the small supplementary pension to which I have referred, those persons who have used the exiguous savings of an official career for the purchase of an annuity should be penalised. It is an anomaly that some Colonies should have granted an increase of pensions to their former servants and that some should not have done so. It is an anomaly that the State should have made exceptional arrangements to pay, from the United Kingdom Treasury, the pensions of those who have held the post of Governor in the Colonies, but not of those who have held similar posts in India. In consequence, of course, the pensions of the latter are on a far smaller scale.
There are anomalies in the classification of healthy and unhealthy charges in the Colonies, for the classification is

1127
entirely out of date. It will surprise your Lordships to know that Kenya, even before the Mau Mau movement, was described as being "unhealthy." While we advocate the appointment of such a Commission as I have indicated, there is one observation that I should like to make. There are many former associates of my own, and servants of the Crown in whose interest I am now speaking, who are of a mature, and, it may be, a very mature, age. They might very well hope that the Report of such a Commission would be presented to the Government and that the Government would act on it before they themselves, at their mature age, pass into another life, where they will be equally indifferent either to the possibility of a generous gesture by the Government or to the certainty of increasing exactions by the tax collector.
5.6 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, whatever cold water the noble and gallant Earl may be compelled to pour on our case to-day, I am bound to say that I am not without hope that this Government, which has already considered sympathetically other difficult matters, owing to his own representations, will take a new view of this matter. Our target is that the retired pay and pensions of all officers and their dependants of the Army, Navy and Air Force, should be brought up to those which the Government are compelled to offer to-day to attract young candidates to accept commissions. That seems to me to be a just claim, and I, for one, shall feel it my duty to take every opportunity that is offered to bring this matter, and what I believe to be its justice, before the notice of Parliament and of the public.
But the only thing I wish to say this afternoon is this. I hope that the Government will consider this matter and settle it soon. The whole point of the revised rates of pension and retired pay to-day is to attract young men into the Service to accept commissions as officers. But the cost of living, and the steady rise in the cost of living, is a matter which is so much before the public that it is in the minds of young men to-day. If this controversy is too prolonged, instead of looking forward, as the authorities hope they will do, they may cast their eyes back over their shoulders to the ruined
1128
social system behind them; and then, like Lot's wife, they will become immobile, and will not proceed in the direction in which it is hoped they will proceed. I therefore urge the Government, not only to consider this matter sympathetically but to consider it soon, because I feel that that is of the greatest importance. We do not wish this question to become aggravated any more: it is too deeply and painfully felt by the relatives of the young men whom we wish to bring forward to the good service of their country to-day.
5.9 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, struck a responsive chord in my heart, because when the civil servants have been spoken of to-day reference has not been made to the officers of the Colonial Service. They suffer many of the disabilities which have been spoken of in connection with the officers of the Defence Forces. The civil servants have been spoken of to-day as people who work in the same office all their working lives, have one home, and so on, and live completely settled lives. That is not true of the officers of the Colonial Civil Service, who suffer many of the disabilities of being moved about and of having no permanent home and facilities for the education of their children, that officers of the Defence Forces also suffer. I remember that one of my civil servants came to me to ask whether I felt he was justified in sending his son to his old school on an overdraft. Very often the savings of a civil servant in the Colonies go in one year in bringing their children out for their holidays. I have been served so ably and so loyally by some of these men that I feel it would be ungrateful of me if I did not mention those facts.
I must at the outset of my remarks declare an interest in this matter. I am in receipt of a pension, but I will give an undertaking to the noble and gallant Earl that if, on behalf of the Government, he is able to accept what is in this Motion to-day, I will forgo any advantage which I might otherwise reap by his so doing. I am very glad that something has been done for the widows. Those who have interested themselves in their lot have not yet had time to look at the White Paper, and it may therefore be necessary to

1129
revert to that matter at a future date. But I do, indeed, rejoice that these most unfortunate ladies, who have suffered very bitterly indeed, have at long last had something done for them. What I always thought particularly mean about their pensions was that, small though those pensions were, these ladies had to undergo a means test before they could draw even that miserable pittance; and not only that, but they might have to re-establish their claim to it from time to time.
What I always find particularly unpleasant in these questions of officers' pay and pensions is that occasionally I get a slight smell of what I would call "blackmailing patriotism"—blackmailing those whose desire to serve their country outweighs their consideration of material things. But nowadays the weight of material things is making itself increasingly felt, and more and more we shall have to ask whether wives and mothers are going to urge their sons to go into professions which have brought them many anxieties and many real hardships.
The case has been so fully and ably argued by the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, and those who have assisted him in this debate, that there is little left to say, and I know that we are all waiting with impatience to hear what the noble and gallant Earl has to say in reply on behalf of the Government. But one or two things are very much in my mind. What moral justification can there possibly be for what I regard as a typical Treasury tricky device of having three different codes in these matters, and all these anomalies? I said "tricky device," and I hope the noble and gallant Earl will not take that phrase amiss, because honestly I think it is very unfair that he should have to answer this debate this afternoon. I think the reply ought to come from a representative of the Treasury. I shall not be putting any words into the noble Earl's mouth if I say that I believe he must have felt considerable force in many of the arguments which have been advanced to-day. Of course, under the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility he has to reply for the Government, whatever his own feelings in the matter may be, and that is no derogation of him at all. It would be an absurd state of affairs if a Minister resigned whenever he
1130
had a difference of opinion with his colleagues. Far better that he should stay where he is in this instance and, I hope, urge and use his influence in the direction in which we hope to see the Government move.
But with regard to this device of three different codes, shopkeepers do not vary their prices in accordance with them. Their prices remain the same. It is not that the Treasury—which contains, I understand, the intellectual cream of the Civil Service—is incapable of working out one perfectly simple, straightforward code in these matters. They have shown themselves capable of doing it in the case of the civil servants themselves. They worked out a very good code indeed for the widows of the Civil Service—not three codes, but no anomalies and a perfectly simple, straightforward code. Then again, I never heard such nonsense as dragging the economic position of the country into this matter. It would be just as sensible to say that by asking for this to be granted we were running the risk of bringing about an epidemic of influenza in the country. Fears of inflation, indeed! The other day the doctors received £40 million between them, and I heard nothing about inflation—that that could not be granted because of fears of inflation. Here we have sums involved which I understand, amount to under £2,500,000—a diminishing sum in any case—and we are told that it would be risking our whole economic position if this were to be granted. It is said that these claims cannot be considered in isolation from those of other State pensioners. Well, the civil servants' claims were considered in such isolation; and if there are other injustices and anomalies, why not put the whole lot right? The Treasury idea is to let a whole lot of anomalies and injustices grow up and then, when tackled about one of them, to say that you cannot remedy the one without remedying all the others, and that, of course, would be impossible. I think that is a very contemptible position to take up.
What a wonderful state of affairs it is when, after the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1944 and 1947, some officers received less than they did, in 1919! How can such a state of affairs as that possibly be defended? The Government is supposed

1131
to represent public opinion in the country. Does anyone suppose that public opinion in this country wishes officers to suffer such an obvious injustice as that? Then there is this word-spinning about "may" and "shall" and "will." So far as I can make out, in the Treasury's eyes those words mean different things according to whether the cost of living is rising or falling. At any rate, as regards the Navy, the Admiralty managed to be completely clear and definite on that point because, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, has said, they most specifically laid down that revision of the 1919 scales should take place periodically—I think every three years—and it is quite incredible that one of the fighting Services should differ in its view on that matter from either of the other two. The wisdom, foresight and fairness of providing for this triennial revision has been shown in the abnormal rise in the cost of living which has taken place. But all that hair-splitting about "may" and "will" and "shall" has this afternoon quite rightly been called a quibble, and it is a contemptible quibble as well.
It has also been demonstrated quite clearly in this debate that, in spite of what has been said, alterations in pay have been made in the past with retrospective effect. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, like other speakers and myself, resent having to beg in this way for what should be the clear rights of the officers of the three justly proud Services. Doctors, teachers, civil servants, all have their unions and their associations which can fight their case for them and protect their interests. I remember that even some of the more responsible Press organs raised their eyebrows over the rough way in which the senior civil servants pushed Mr. Attlee about when they were asking for rises in their pay. I am sure that the noble Earl who is going to reply realises all that is involved in this matter, and that he realises the real misery and wretchedness which because of these things is caused to people who have served their country. If he cannot give us a satisfactory reply this afternoon I hope, and indeed I feel sure, that he will represent to the Prime Minister the depth of feeling which is aroused by these injustices.
5.21 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, I have listened to the debate this afternoon with great interest and a lot of sympathy. We are grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys, for having given us an opportunity of a full discussion on this matter of pensions, which is a very important one. I certainly appreciate very much the moderate and reasonable way in which he has presented his case.
There is no doubt at all that there is very strong feeling amongst retired officers on this question of pensions; and a discussion in your Lordships' House can do nothing but good, since it shows those concerned that their difficulties have been fully ventilated and that the Government are well aware of the various factors involved. The interest that I feel in this debate arises mainly from my position as Minister of Defence. Consequently, any well-founded grievance felt by those who have given a lifetime of service in the commissioned ranks of the Armed Forces is a matter of concern to me, since it must have some reaction on the morale and contentment of the officers now serving, and also on the future position of recruitment—a very important point which has been referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I have a more personal interest in this matter under debate. I have spent a great part of my life as a professional soldier, and many of the officers concerned are of my generation; some of them are comrades and old friends. There is no doubt, therefore, about my sympathy in this matter. I am also aware of the straitened circumstances in which some of these officers are now living. I can, therefore, declare an interest in this matter—but it is an interest which must compel me, as Minister of Defence, to examine the points made in this debate with the greatest care.
On July 21 of last year I received a deputation representing all the political Parties, as well as representatives of the Officers' Association and of the Officers' Pensions Society. That deputation was led by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. It made representations to me concerning many aspects of Service retired pay and pensions, among which were these grievances of those officers who retired between the wars on the 1919 retired pay basis. This question was brought

1133
forward prominently. One of the major questions raised by the deputation concerned the low rates of widows' pensions. Your Lordships will remember that just before Christmas there was an announcement that the Government were considering some increase on existing widows' pensions, and on pensions for future members of all ranks of the Forces. Lord Ogmore called attention to this White Paper which has just been published and which is at your Lordships' disposal to-day. I do not want to discuss the White Paper now, but the noble Lord asked a question which, I am glad to say, I can answer. He spoke about certain anomalies. Well, my Lords, paragraph (4) deals with the new family pensions scheme, which applies to all those serving since August 31, 1950. Paragraph (5) outlines and improves on the old scheme—that is, it deals with all who ceased to serve on or before August 31, 1950. I think I can say that this new scheme has been well received and welcomed, both in Parliament and in the country.
The other major matter urged by the deputation was that Service retired pay and pensions for officers should be brought into line with those under the new code introduced in September, 1950. I informed your Lordships on November 19 of last year that the Government were unable, in existing financial circumstances, to give the benefits of the 1950 code to officers and other ranks who left the Services before that date. I referred to the existing financial circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has made a comparison between the United States' Service pensions and our own, but I do not think we can possibly compare the two. One is the richest country in the world; the other, if not downright poor, is not so rich. There is only one similarity between us. The United States, like ourselves, relate the scale of their pensions to their pay code for the Services—and we know how well the Americans can afford to pay their fighting men. It has always been the rule in the past that when new and improved emoluments are introduced for the Services they are not applied retrospectively; and it has always been the principle that the pensions of State servants are related to the emoluments they received during their full-time service. That is the principle which has always been accepted.
1134
Whether it is a good principle or a bad one is entirely a matter of opinion, but that is the principle. A very practical reason against retrospection is this: that if it had to operate every time improved emoluments were granted to the Services, the cost of retrospective application would be such that it would probably make it impossible to introduce such improvements in pay—and that would certainly not be in the interests of the Services.
Moreover, the Fighting Services cannot be considered by themselves in this context. Retrospection cannot be applied to the Forces without the contention being made that similar benefits should be given to civil servants, local government servants, teachers, and all those other vast numbers of employees whose pensions are modelled on those of Government servants. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, spoke rather lightly this afternoon of £2 million, but in our present financial circumstances I myself could not speak lightly of £2 million. I wish I had an extra £2 million to spend on the equipment of my three Fighting Services. But I must remind your Lordships that the cost would be very much more than £2 million if we were to include all those classes I have just mentioned—the civil servants, the local government servants, teachers and soon. If we were to raise the pensions of all these classes of people, of course it would mean much more than £2 million. I hope that I have explained the reasons why the present Government cannot apply current rates of pensions retrospectively to those who have already left the Forces. In this respect they are only following the practice carried out by all recent Governments, of whatever political Party.
I should like to examine in more detail the case of those who retired between the wars and whose pensions were stabilised in 1935, for it is these gentlemen whose grievances are really at the heart of this debate. When the new pensions code was introduced in 1919, it was explained that 20 per cent. of the retired pay was attributable to the increased cost of living during the years of the First World War, and would therefore be subject to periodical revision, both upwards and downwards. At the time this seemed fair enough. After the promulgation of the 1919 code the cost of living still rose

1135
steadily, but by the time the first revision was made in 1924 the cost of living had fallen below the 1919 figure, and consequently the revision was downward. The same happened with subsequent revisions, and retired officers saw their pensions successively decreased at each revision.
In 1935, the Government of the day decided to stabilise these pensions by applying the principle which the Tomlin Commission had strongly urged in the case of the Civil Service, both high paid and low paid. This decision, I have always understood, was welcomed by the officers affected. Nor was the settlement really ungenerous. The 1935 cost of living would have justified a cut of more than 10 per cent., whereas the reduction made on the 1919 rates was 9½ per cent. —not much difference, I admit, but still it was a difference on the right side. So I think it unfair to say that the stabilisation of retired pay at a level of 9½ per cent. below the 1919 rate was "sharp practice," as is often alleged. It is true that, as events worked out, the cost of living did not continue to fall. On the contrary, after 1935, it increased. But who could have foreseen then what the future held for us—another world war, with all its terrible, disastrous effects on the cost of living? To be quite fair, I do not think that you can credit the Treasury with such accurate foresight as to have been able to see what the cost of living was likely to be.
I hope that I have shown your Lordships that the consolidation of pensions in 1935 was not the breach of faith which it is so often made out to be. The 1919 arrangement, with its fluctuations, was only an experiment, and it was not a success. At the time, it caused widespread dissatisfaction, and when the pension code for the Forces was again revised in 1945 it was abandoned, with general approval. I would remind your Lordships also that the majority of officers who retired between the wars have received increases in their retired pay under one or more of the three pension increase schemes, in 1944, 1947 and 1952. In this connection, I should like to quote some figures. I will quote them for the Army, because the Army are the greatest number and, therefore, are the majority
1136
affected. Out of 8,000 Army officers who were pensioned before the introduction of the later codes, 3,000 had their pensions re-assessed for service in the 1939–45 war and 2,800 have enjoyed virtually complete restoration of the 9½ per cent. cut as the result of the pension increase schemes. Two thousand have had the cut partially restored, which leaves fewer than 200 who have received nothing and who are still on the rates fixed in 1935. For all three Services, about 350 officers have received no benefit from either war service re-assessment or the pension increase schemes, and these 350 are really the people with whom we are all deeply concerned in this debate this afternoon.
The basis of the procedure adopted is that if an increase is justified, on account of the cost of living, for one class of State servants, it is justified for other classes who are similarly affected. It is for this reason, as I mentioned earlier, that the Government have to consider all State servants and not one class alone. This principle has been adopted, and many people do not agree with that. There is no reason at all why I should give your Lordships my own private opinion, but this is a rule which has always been accepted by Governments in the past: that, broadly, all State servants are treated equally and that one class cannot be singled out from another. That practice is fair on the surface, but of course there are arguments against it, as there are arguments for it. Furthermore, nearly all the younger officers who retired before the outbreak of hostilities in 1939 were recalled to the colours, and those officers have had their pre-war pensions re-assessed for their last war service. It is well-nigh impossible, I think, to take one particular class of pensioner servant, however deserving their case may be, and give them preferential treatment over other classes of pensioners who are placed in like financial circumstances.
LORD OGMORE: On this point, may I ask the noble and gallant Earl whether it is not a fact that the Civil Service have had three increases in their pay, and consequently in their pension, since September, 1948, and, if so, does not this dispose of his argument about no preferential treatment among the Services?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: I have never had the honour of being a

1137
civil servant, so I do not know a great deal about their case. However, I think I am right in saying that they have not had an increase of pension. What they have had is three bonuses, which have been subject to tax.
LORD OGMORE: I am asking for information, because the information that I have is that they have had three increases of pay, and that pay carries pension rights. It may be that the information I have, from the Officers' Association and Officers' Pension Society, is incorrect, but I think that should be known, because it goes out very widely that the Civil Service have had three increases of pay since September, 1948.
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: I am afraid that I cannot inform the noble Lord further, because I am ignorant of the circumstances of the case. But I suppose it would not be wrong to say that Service officers at various times have also had an increase in pension due to war service. I think it is not unfair to say that an avalanche may well be started by the displacement of small boulders. I need hardly say that this may well add a burden to the Exchequer which would be quite unacceptable in its distinct financial circumstances. Nor would it be welcomed by that impressive body of public opinion in this country which is constantly urging the reduction of Government expenditure in the interests of ending the inflation which is at the very root of so many of our troubles in these post-war years. It would be wrong of me to hold out hopes to your Lordships that the Government will be able at the present time to meet the claims made on behalf of those retired officers.
I have attempted to show the serious repercussions which would or could follow from any measure to grant to these officers the rates of retired pay now current for present members of the Forces. I can, however, assure your Lordships that the case put so cogently in this House this afternoon will be most earnestly considered by Her Majesty's Government. I can also assure your Lordships that the whole question of retired officers' pay and pensions will be kept constantly under review and examination,
1138
and if and when it becomes possible to assist them financially, they may rest assured that they will not be forgotten.
LORD OGMORE: Before the noble Earl sits down—and this is a very important subject—may I ask one question? According to The noble Earl, 350 officers in all the Services are very badly affected indeed. As I understand it, they have had no increase at all. Three hundred and fifty is the hard core. Is that not right?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: Three hundred and fifty-nine. There are 173 in the Navy, 178 in the Army, and 8 in the Royal Air Force.
LORD OGMORE: May I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that doing justice to 359 officers is not going to sink the United Kingdom, although it may be in the parlous state which the noble Earl has described? It is not going to affect the economy of the United Kingdom at all. I ask the Government whether, at all events, they will not do something for the 359 unfortunate officers to whom the noble Earl has referred.
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his observation of which I shall certainly take careful note.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I ask the noble and gallant Earl one question, in order to get one matter quite clear? In his concluding remarks he said that Her Majesty's Government will keep this matter constantly under review. Does that mean that Her Majesty's Government are now going to conduct a review in this matter, or does it just mean that it is going to be there one day to be remedied if conditions so allow?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: I can reply to the noble Lord quite clearly on that point. So far as I know there is no intention that an examination should be carried out. When I used this term, which was entirely my own, I meant that we will not forget those cases which are deserving of very careful study; and as long as I am here in my present job, I promise that I will watch the case as carefully as I can.
5.43 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will have heard with great interest the speech of the noble and gallant Earl who has just sat down. In the circumstances, I think that we shall at any rate have made a little progress if we are to understand, as I am sure we do understand from his last statement, that this matter will be kept constantly under the consideration of the Government. I cannot help thinking that if it is kept constantly under the consideration of the Government, they will realise the essential justice of dealing, not so much with the whole question of the £2 million involved in re-adjusting any pensions, but with adjusting legitimate grievances in regard to the 1919 Warrant pensions. I hope that we may look forward to this matter being taken into consideration and acted upon very soon indeed. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, for Papers, by leave withdrawn.