§ 2.36 p.m.
§ LORD CHATFIELDMy Lords, I ask your Lordships' permission to make a personal statement. If I may, I will read it to your Lordships, in order not to keep you more than about five minutes. It concerns a statement made on December 15 by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, speaking for Her Majesty's Government, in reply to a Motion on officers' pensions which had been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jeffreys. The noble Earl used these words—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 185 (No. 19), col. 116:
I am sorry that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, is not here. I see that he has called this settlement a 'smart financial deal'. Of course he was First Sea Lord, and so was a consenting party. He must have given his assent when the Orders went out from the Board of Admiralty at that time dealing with this matter.My Lords, I was prevented by sudden ill-health from attending that particular debate as I had intended, and this is the first opportunity I have had since then to answer that statement. I should not have done so had it not been for the fact that the noble Earl was speaking for Her Majesty's Government. The speech to which the noble Earl referred I made in January, 1953, in a previous debate on officers' pensions. In that speech I did use the words "a smart financial deal," but the whole gist of my speech, from which only a few words were quoted, quite obviously referred not to the settlement itself hut to the use subsequently 226 made of it by the Treasury. But it is a fact that it proved to be a smart financial deal.When you reach any settlement, only experience of its working will prove whether it is good or bad. When you make it you naturally hope that it will prove satisfactory. I personally took no part whatever in the negotiations. At that time I had many big problems on my hands, including, for instance, the battle with the Treasury for a large sum of money to defend the country. But of course I accept that, as a member of the Board of Admiralty, had my share of collective board responsibility for accepting as did the other two Services, the settlement that was finally arrived at—the best we could get. It was not, as might be imagined, just a pleasant roundtable conference, at which there developed mutual agreement between the Service representatives and those of the Treasury. There was the customary hard battle to which we were so accustomed in the peace years—a battle which went on for months and in which eminent civil servants played a prominent part—and the representatives of the Services obtained the best terms that they could get. I have ascertained from the only Admiralty representative living—it was twenty years ago—of those selected by the First Lord to fight our case that, as regards the stabilisation of pensions, the Treasury, who initiated the discussions, laid down, as the basis of a settlement, that the original sliding scale was to be abolished; and from this they would not budge. Stabilisation was imposed on the Services—a very important fact. Stabilisation of pensions surely implied to the Service representatives some reasonable stabilisation in the cost of living.
My Lords, in the peace years the Services fought one financial battle after another, from the Annual Estimates downwards. They almost invariably had to accept the Government decisions on financial controversies, and in the case in question they had accept stabilisation, expecting honourable treatment. That the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, should make an accusation, however honestly meant, implying that in such circumstances I had no right or justification in criticising in Parliament the action of the Treasury, is, I think, unreasonable (I would not put it higher), both on the facts 227 and in principle. I have nothing to withdraw. In the past seventeen years I have frequently in your Lordships' House criticised financial decisions forced on the Services during the twelve years in which I served on the Board of Admiralty. I have done so, as in this case, because as a Member of Parliament I felt that it was my duty to do so.
§ 2.44 p.m.
§ THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)My Lords, after what has happened the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, will probably not expect me to say anything further to-day—except, perhaps, this. If, in any remarks I have made, I have caused the noble and gallant Lord any pain, I am, of course, exceedingly sorry, because that was the last thing I intended to do. I am bound to say, however, that I think it was a fair point to make—the change of position which does take place over a number of years. I am quite certain that there is no accusation that I should bring to bear on Lord Chatfield. I can assure him that there was not the slightest reflection upon him in what I said, nor was there anything of the sort in my intention when I referred to the matter in question.
§ LORD CHATFIELDI thank the noble Earl.