§ 4.37 p.m.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)My Lords, before we come to a consideration of the second Bill on the Order Paper, I hope the House will allow me to intervene to make a statement on the pensions of certain retired serving officers which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the matter is not one which concerns the Ministry of Defence alone. The statement is as follows.
"Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered whether, without departing from the principles which have hitherto governed pensions increase, they could grant some relief to those retired Service officers whose pensions were affected by the operation of the sliding-scale which was in force after the First World War, and whose pensions were stabilised in 1935 at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 level. Although the stabilisation was favourable to those concerned, the cost of 478 living has now for some years risen beyond the 1919 level and those affected have felt for a good many years past that they have cause for complaint.
"The sliding-scale and the stabilisation affected not only retired officers of the Armed Forces but civilian Crown servants as well. Action to remedy the situation in their case would require legislation to amend the recent Pensions Increase Act. While the Government recognise the hardship which, in the light of later events, the pre-war stabilisation has created, they have after much consideration come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to treat this problem as a special case at a time when so many other demands are pressing."
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords, I have had to reply in the past to the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, who has fought this battle for a great many years, rather in the sense that the noble Marquess has just replied. However, I know that this decision will cause great disappointment, and I feel bound to say that I wish it had been found possible to do something to meet this most deserving case.
§ LORD JEFFREYSMy Lords, I believe that this statement will cause more than disappointment. These officers have a grievance which is a particularly serious one, and they have felt it for a long time, because they were promised, in instruments in 1919, that their rates of pay should rise and fall according as the cost of living rose or fell, and to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent. They did fall as long as the cost of living fell, but they never rose at all; and they have remained at 9½ per cent. below the rates of 1919 ever since. I do not know whether there is any other class in the community whose rates of pay or pension are 9½ per cent., or any other percentage, less than those of 1919. In view of the fact that the cost of living has risen and the value of money has declined immensely, there will be enormous disappointment throughout the Services and throughout the class of officers who are affected by this, to my mind, unfortunate statement of my noble friend.
LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, I am sorry that the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, is not in his place to-day, be- 479 cause I am sure that he will be deeply disappointed. I felt that somebody from the Navy should get up and say, on behalf of my old Service, that we also are deeply disappointed at this decision.
§ EARL WINTERTONMy Lords, as I raised this question in another place, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word. While I do not dissent from what my two noble friends have said—indeed, it is obvious that there will be great disappointment—I feel that, in view of the general economic situation, there is considerable strength in the argument which my noble friend the Leader of the House has used. I cannot refrain from making one comment on the remarks made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I understood him to say, first, that he was in general agreement with the views of the Government, and then that he regretted they had come to the decision they have. He is no doubt aware of the fact that my noble friend behind me and I, in another place, as well as many others, raised this question constantly during the six years of the Government of which he was a member, and no action was taken.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, like the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, we all regret the necessity for this decision. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys, that it was one which the Government did not reach without the most anxious thought about the possibility of making a special case. Personally—and I know that I speak for my colleagues—I feel very deeply what he and other noble Lords have said. I can only hope that circumstances will alter so as to make a different decision possible.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, may I ask whether, in future considerations—because there will be future considerations—it is not worth considering this point? When the noble and gallant Earl the Minister of Defence replied to a Question last week, it was said that the Government were reluctant to disturb anything which was based on a contract. Here you have a powerful body making a contract with a weak body. The powerful body has control of the standard of living and that power is used, no doubt 480 in the public interest, but, so far as these people are concerned, to diminish the value of their side of the contract. I do not think that that is a fair situation or one which ought to be allowed to continue.