THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy 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 whether, in view of the fact that nearly 299 7,000,000 workers received wage increases amounting to£1,875,200 a week during the first nine months of this year, the refusal, announced in January last, to increase officers' pensions might be reconsidered and if this is not possible in toto, might not a start be made in the case of that small and rapidly dwindling band of old officers now living on pensions at the rate of 9 per cent. below the 1919 rates.]
§ THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS)My Lords, I am sure that, on reflection, my noble and gallant friend will recognise that the increases in current wages earned by industrial workers this year bear no direct relation to the pensions of those already retired and, therefore, afford no logical ground for increasing the retired pay of officers of the Armed Forces who left the Services between1919 and 1935. Successive Governments have consistently maintained the principle that these superannuation benefits are contractual and cannot, without injustice to other persons living on fixed incomes, be increased, save in exceptional circumstances. These exceptions are where additional service is rendered to the State after an officer's retirement, or where extreme hardship can be shown to exist owing to the fall in the value of money.
As your Lordships know, increases have been given to retired officers, in common with other pensioners, in both these sets of circumstances. The latest increase, in hardship cases, was given in 1952. As regards those few remaining pensioners whose retired pay was stabilised in 1935 at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 rates and who have not benefited from the increases I have mentioned, Her Majesty's Government will, as I stated in your Lordships' House on June 17 last, continue their search for a fair solution which will not involve a departure from the principle I have mentioned, to the maintenance of which they attach the highest importance. However, I hope to make a statement on this subject in a week's time.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYMy Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Earl for his Answer to my Question. May I ask this supplementary question? The large increase in wages given this 300 year, quoted in my Question, were almost entirely due, I understand, to the increased rise in the cost of living. I submit that those officers to whom the noble and gallant Earl referred also have to live, and they are about the only body of persons in this country who have not had an increase over the last thirty years. I ask the noble and gallant Earl to reconsider this matter, and, if it is reconsidered, I would ask that there should be no question of who was right or who was wrong a quarter of a century ago, but whether the plea for the increase is justified by an alteration of circumstances which nobody could have foreseen in 1935. The 1919 rates ought to be increased to something approximating to the 1953 cost of living.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, I have shorn my question of half its point on learning that the noble and gallant Field Marshal hopes to make a statement on this subject in a week's time; but does he not think that when the matter which my noble and gallant friend has brought up is considered some consideration should be given to the fact that there is no free foreign exchange and that foreign exchange rates and, consequently, to a great extent the cost of living, are within the power of the Government?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNISMy Lords, in view of the fact that I hope to make a statement on this subject next week, I think it better that I should not say anything now in reply to the noble Lords' supplementary questions.