PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL (Hansard, 4 December 1962)

HL Deb 04 December 1962 vol 245 cc145-63 145

§ 3.7 p.m.

§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly.

§ [The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]

§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

§ Clause 3:

§ Supplements in respect of certain colonial and other pensions

§ 3.—

§ (4) No supplement shall be payable by virtue of regulations under this section in respect of any pension—

(a) where the pension is payable in any overseas territory in which any services giving rise to the pension were rendered, unless the pensioner is for the time being resident in the United Kingdom;
(b) where the pension is not payable in any such territory, if the pensioner is for the time being resident in any such territory (not being so resident solely for the purposes of a contract of service with the Government of that territory).

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE) moved, in subsection (2) (a), 146 after "territory in" to insert "or for". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 5 on the Marshalled List and its purpose is to make eligible for settlement under Clause 3 of (the Bill two categories of pensioners of the Sudan Government who are not covered by the Bill as it is now drafted. The first category comprises pensioners in respect of ex-gratia pensions, officers who were employed in a pensionable capacity but who retired on grounds of ill-health too early to qualify for a pension under the relevant Ordinances, and it seems right that the Sudan ex-gratia pensions should also be covered by the Bill.

§ The other category is composed of officers recruited in the United Kingdom, to serve on a pensionable basis in the London office of the Sudan Government, not in the Sudan itself, under either the Sudan Government (London Office) Pensions Scheme, 1925 or the Sudan Government Agency in London (Superannuation Scheme for Staff), 1949. These officers were all British subjects. The same broad considerations apply to them as apply to the overseas pensioners generally, and it therefore seems right that they should also receive supplements under Clause 3 of the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 44, after second ("in") insert ("or for").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

§ THE EARL OF LUCAN
I think, very shortly, one cam say that the Amendment will be very much welcomed, and the fact that the increase is to be extended to these officers of the former Sudan Government will give great satisfaction.

§ LORD OGMORE
I have had some correspondence from former members of the Sudan Service, and at first sight, of course, it is not easy to understand the exact implications of adding the words "or for" after the word "in".

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
It is pre-consequential to the next Amendment.

§ LORD OGMORE
We were hoping that this would in fact be the result. I should like to thank the Government most sincerely, on behalf of those who have written to me, for the consideration they have given to this matter. It would have 147 been most unfortunate if these faithful servants of the Sudan had been left out on what would be a pure technicality. It is very encouraging that the Government have agreed to put this in. I take it that there are no other Sudan civil servants who are left out. My impression is that we have covered them all. If there are any that have been left out, no doubt the Government will consider their case equally favourably. Perhaps the noble Earl would give us an indication whether this particular measure does in fact round up all the faithful ex-servants of the Sudan.

§ LORD COLYTON
I also should like to thank Her Majesty's Government for inserting this Amendment. For a very long time the Sudan pensioners felt left out in the cold in this business of the increase of pensions. Her Majesty's Government have now made ample amends, and I should particularly like to thank my noble friend for his understanding of the needs of the former British pensioners of the Sudan Government.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 3.13 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after subsection (2) to insert: ( ) Notwithstanding anything in the previous Pensions (Increase) Acts, a pension to which this section applies may be paid to a person who, at the commencement of this Act, was 55 or older.

§ The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, to which I referred during the Second Reading debate, is a very simple one. It is to make overseas pensioners eligible for their supplementary pension at the age of 55, the age of compulsory retirement for overseas civil servants. I do not know whether this Amendment is properly drafted or whether this is the right place to insert it. At the moment I am only anxious to find out what is the attitude of the Government to the principle of the Amendment. Surely this is a case in which the treatment of the overseas Service pensioner should be different from that of the home Civil Service officer. The earlier retiring age is, of course, based on the much tougher and more difficult conditions of service overseas. But the fact that the man has to retire at 55, at an earlier age than the home 148 civil servant, should not deprive him of the pension to which he is certainly morally entitled—a supplement to the basic pension between the age of 55 and 60.

§ May I ask the noble Earl this question?—I did ask him about this point on Second Reading, and he may now have the facts available. I should like to know the number of men affected, and also, roughly, what would be the cost of lowering the age limit of eligibility. I think these facts would strengthen our case. I do not think that many people would be affected, or that the cost would be large. Although this does not affect the principle, it would affect our consideration of the practicability of the proposal. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
The noble Earl has moved his Amendment in a very brief and moderate speech. On Second Reading he did ask a question on a general point in regard to eligibility below the age of 60, on which I said something in my own remarks. The noble Earl has now asked two further questions. The first is whether his Amendment is properly drafted, and on that I would say two things. The first is that the Amendment is not properly drafted; the second is that it does not matter. We are not pedantic about this sort of thing, and if we could meet the noble Earl in any way, I would gladly undertake to make any necessary alterations in the improper drafting of his Amendment to give effect to his intention. I think his intention is to enable supplements under Clause 3 of the Bill to be paid on overseas pensions to pensioners who are not less than 55 years of age on January 1 next year.
Then the noble Earl asked me whether I could tell him the number of people who would be affected, and the cost. I am not sure that I can tell him the exact number. The cost would be very small, he says. It would be, in fact, about £100,000. But I would put it to your Lordships that if we were to make this concession (which is one that has not been made under any previous Pensions (Increase) Act in the last 40 years) to this particular category of people, I do not see how it would be possible to 149 refuse a similar concession to all the ex-Servicemen in the police and fire services, most of whom are retired before the age of 55, and also, under the Prerogative Instrument, to all the ex-soldiers, sailors and airmen, some of whom are retired at a very much earlier age. If we are to do that, it would cost £8½ million instead of £100,000, and would run counter to the principles we have always observed in bringing in these Pension (Increase) Bills during the last 40 years—though most of them, of course, have been introduced within the last seventeen years, since the end of the Second World War.
I have just been looking at the last Pensions (Increase) Bill we had, that in 1959, which, as it happened, although, at the time, I was in a different office, I had the duty of managing in your Lordships' House. The same question was raised on that Bill. Although at that time the emphasis was much more on all pensioners of every kind—civil servants, police, firemen and ex-Servicemen, as well as Colonial ex-officers, who did not receive this ex-gratia supplement until they reached the age of 60—I tried to give on Second Reading (we did not have much of a Committee stage on that occasion) the reasons against doing so. I do not think there is anything much to be added.
At that time, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will know, the people whose case he is now putting did not come under the Bill at all, because their pensions, for the most part, were payable by ex-Colonies which had since become independent sovereign States, and whose Governments had undertaken the obligation of paying the pensions of British subjects previously employed in the British Colonial administration and now retired. They were not bound to pay any increase; neither, of course, were we. Since the independence of the various ex-Colonies, we have always made representations to the new independent sovereign Governments informing them of any increase we were giving under any of the late Pensions (Increase) Acts, in the hope that they would do the same. Some of them have, as I told your Lordships on Second Reading, and some of them have not.
The new departure which this Bill makes is to bring all these ex-officers 150 into the same category as civil servants, Service pensioners and everybody else for whom the British Government have always admitted full responsibility. Under this Bill they will now get the same increases as our own civil servants, subject to the same conditions. That principle, if I remember aright, was warmly welcomed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and by many others of your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill. But the noble Earl is now asking that they should not only be brought into line with the others, but should now be given a special privilege which other pensioners do not enjoy; that is to say, that they should receive these ex-gratia increases before they attain the age of 60, while all the ex-Servicemen, firemen, police and so on, do not receive a similar increase. We do not think that that would be fair or right.
I think it was in 1955 that an agreement was made with India, about ex-Indian civil servants who were resident abroad and who decided to go back to India. It was then agreed that increases should not be given on different conditions from those which applied to British ex-civil servants. I would therefore put it to your Lordships that if you were to indicate your desire to accept this Amendment—and I entirely understand the reasons which have motivated the noble Earl in moving it—it would not be possible to accept it. It would not be accepted in another place, anyhow. But even if it were, it would not be possible to agree to it without putting all the ex-Servicemen, all the firemen, police and Government civil servants who happened to retire before the age of 60, in the same position; and that would impose a very large additional burden on the Exchequer.
I would just remind your Lordships of something of which I think most of your Lordships are already aware: that if a pensioner who has retired and is still below the age of 60 is suffering from ill-health, or for any other reason is unable to obtain other employment, he can, and nearly always does, qualify for this ex-gratia increase, which has been given under all these Pensions (Increase) Acts. The reason for observing this distinction is that we must try to concentrate this ex-gratia payment upon those who need it most. Although we know that there are many people below the age of 60 who 151 cannot always get other employment—and, as I say, they do receive the increase if for reasons of ill-health they are unable to do so—it is right that we should concentrate our additional payments upon those who need them most.

§ LORD OGMORE
I speak as one who has a great deal of interest in this question of supplemental pensions for colonial civil servants. In fact, your Lordships will remember that about a year ago I introduced a Motion on this matter in your Lordships' House. I feel that the Government's attitude is right in this matter. When I introduced my Motion I gave a number of instances to your Lordships, but they were all instances of very elderly men or women. There was one old lady of over 80 who was having to sell up her house in order to live. There was another lady who hoped that she would die before her capital ran out, because her pension was completely insufficient. That is the sort of cases I had in mind. I did not contemplate men of 55, who in this case are comparatively young—in your Lordships' House mere juveniles—coming in for any excess in this way. I feel that, while we should put these servants of the Crown in the same sort of position as servants who have served us in this country, we ought not to put them in any better position. Therefore, I would support the Government's view in this matter, and ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his full and careful reply, but I must still beg to differ about his prediction that this small concession to overseas pensioners would open the flood gates to other pension claims. I do so for this reason: that I think it is a matter of comparability. After all, these overseas Service officers are members of the Civil Service: the title of their Service is the Oversea Civil Service. They are, therefore, part of the Civil Service, and should be compared to the home Civil Service, whereas, the Armed Forces, surely, are not part of the Civil Service. I should have thought a proper comparison was between civil servants serving overseas, and civil servants serving in Whitehall or elsewhere at home. If this is the basis of comparison, then it does not open the flood gates to other claims. As I have not been supported by other 152 noble Lords, I certainly do not wish to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 3.27 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF LUCAN
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Listowel, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. The subject was fairly thoroughly ventilated on Second Reading, but some of us were not entirely satisfied with the reply from the Government Benches, and so we have put down this Amendment. Without going over the whole case afresh, I should like to move the Amendment now, and hear what the Government have to offer us. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Lucan).

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
The noble Earl has said very little indeed in support of this Amendment, except that he would like me to say something. I am not quite sure whether he wanted me to say something more or merely to repeat what he has told your Lordships I have already said on Second Reading. The noble Earl will remember that he and I, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and two other noble Lords were about the only ones of your Lordships who remained to the end of the Second Reading debate to hear my reply. I do not know whether or not any of your Lordships have been kind enough to read it in Hansard. In any case, I have a feeling that I am sometimes more convincing orally than I am in writing. I did hear myself make my own speech on that occasion, which hardly any others of your Lordships did. However, I will do my best to give a very brief précis of what I tried to say then.
I imagine that the noble Earl wants me to tell him the reason for the residential qualification which is imposed under this Bill. The reason, briefly, is this. I think I mentioned on the last Amendment the precedent of the ex-Indian Civil Service pensioners. They, of course, are the responsibility of the British Government. In 1955 we made an agreement with the Indian Government, that we would take over the responsibility for those British subjects who had settled and were resident in India. 153 We agreed then that we would not give them larger supplementation, larger pensions, than were being received by native, Indian pensioners of the same grade of the Civil Service who had also retired and whose pensions were being paid by the Indian Government.
Since then, we have followed the same principle in regard to British citizens, former members of the Colonial Service, who for one reason or another have elected to reside permanently in the territories in which their pensions were earned. If an ex-Colonial Service officer decides to reside in some Asian or African territory, the reason why we do not give him a larger pension than is being received by native civil servants of the same grade and status as himself, who have also retired and are living in the same territory, is that it must be considered that he has adapted himself to the conditions of the country in which he is living and it would be invidious if he were to be given a larger pension than Africans or Asians of the same grade or rank as himself who are living with him in the same country. But if he changes his mind and comes back to Great Britain, if he decides he wants to make a change of residence and live here, then he is entitled to receive the ex-gratia supplement under all these Pensions Increase Acts.
Several of your Lordships who may not have remained to the end of the Second Reading debate asked whether it was not rather an anomaly that, if this man, instead of coming back to the United Kingdom, decided to go and live in some other ex-Colonial territory, he should receive the supplementation, which he in fact does. I do not think it is an anomaly at all. If he comes back to live in the United Kingdom, he is entitled to and he gas the supplement. If he decides to go and live in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, on the Riviera or [...]n Italy or anywhere he likes, he is entitled to get the supplement under Clause 3, provided that his pension is credited to his account in a British bank and the bank then forward it to him abroad. That provision is to make sure that this will not be used for the purpose of tax evasion. But he can get the supplement if he lives abroad in any other country.
The distinction is not, as one noble Lord put it on Second Reading, between, 154 say, the Sudan and Tanganyika: it is between the country in which he earned his pension and all other parts of the world. If he lives in the country in which he earned his pension, we think it is better that he should get the same as all the native people who are of the same rank as himself. If he comes to live here or in any other part of the world, whether it be Tanganyika or whether it be the Riviera, he is then entitled to receive the supplement, provided that it is credited to him in the United Kingdom through a British bank. That is the whole purpose of this part of the Bill, which the noble Earl has asked me, to explain more fully. Perhaps if I had been encouraged by a larger attendance of your Lordships last week, I might have made this plainer at the time of Second Reading.

LORD REA
Would the noble Earl agree that the anomaly is based on the unfairness, as it would seem to be, to the native people who had served with them in that particular territory and who might be and probably are getting a smaller pension? Does that parallel not actually occur when he comes back from Sudan and goes to Tanganyika? Is he not creating the impression in Tanganyika that he is getting a larger pension than he should?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
No; because his pension is not being paid by the Tanganyikan Government, and it is not the business of the Tanganyikan Government. He is as entitled to live in Tanganyika as he is to live in London or on the Riviera. The true distinction is between the country in which he earned his pension and all the rest of the world.

LORD REA
Am I to understand, then, that he will be paid by the country in which he has earned his pension, if he goes back to that country?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
No. The whole point of this part of the Bill is that, for the first time, the British Government assume the responsibility of paying the difference between any pension he may get from the country in which he earned his pension and the supplements which, under various Pensions Increase Acts, have since been granted by the British Government. That is the difference which this Bill makes. If he decides to 155 live in the country where he has earned his pension, if he resides permanently there, he does not get the supplementation: if he resides in any other part of the world, he does.

§ THE EARL OF LUCAN
May I ask one question for elucidation before other noble Lords come into this debate? The noble Earl has spoken several times of "the country in which he earns his pension". It is surely the case that some members of the Colonial Service have probably served in many different countries and many different parts of the world, and I believe that all those countries contribute in proportion towards their pensions. If he has served in Africa, the West Indies, the Far East and Malta, does it mean that if he elects to settle down in any of those countries he is debarred from receiving the supplement?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
I think that would depend upon which country is finally responsible for paying his pension. The British Government supplements the pension under this Bill for the first time. It has never been done before. Previously, we have always tried to get the independent countries which have undertaken the pensions responsibilities to pay any increases. Some of them have and some of them have not. But if there is a division of responsibility among two or three, then I am afraid that if he lived in any of them he would not get the increase. But if he lived in one which was not contributing towards his pension, then he would. I do not think there is any anomaly, because, I would repeat again, the distinction is not between the country in which he earns his pension, or the countries in which he earns his pension, and some other equally backward country: the distinction is between his native colleagues who are of the same rank and grade as himself and the rest of the world. If he lives in some other country, it is none of their business. If he lives in France, Tanganyika or the United Kingdom, he gets the increase.

§ LORD MILVERTON
I was one of the select band who stayed to listen to the noble Earl when he answered the debate on the Second Reading, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that, although I am rather fresher now than I was then, I am just as un- 156 impressed by his arguments now as I was at that time. If I may venture to query him, is he correct in the answer he gave just now? Because in the case of a colonial servant who has served in several Colonies and who draws a portion of his pension from each Colony relative to the period of his service in that Colony, surely even the British Government would not deny him the right to receive that part of the increase relative to all the Colonies except the one in which he elected to reside. That makes the whole position even more ridiculous; but, as I read the Bill, that surely must be the case. To take the example which the noble Earl dislikes, if a colonial civil servant had served in, say, Tanganyika and in Kenya, and had elected to go and live in Tanganyika, surely, under the Government's ruling, the only portion of his pension in regard to which he would not be eligible for the increase would be his service in Tanganyika. He would surely be eligible far the increase in relation to his service in Kenya, which Is next door and which is classified as one of the other countries.

§ 3.40 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
I do not dislike any example at all. All I am trying to do is to make the distinction clear between the territory in which the ex-colonial servant earned his pension and where he lived together with other native pensioners of the same rank as himself, and the rest of the world. If he earned his pension in Tanganyika and if he wants to live in Tanganyika he will not receive a larger pension than that which the Tanganyika Government has contracted to pay to its own pensioners of the same status as himself. That has always been so. Under this Bill, it he wants to live in the United Kingdom in his own home or in any other part of the world the British Government will pay him the supplementary ex-gratia payments to which he would have become entitled under all these Pensions (Increase) Acts in 1947, 1952, 1956, 1959 and now 1962 as are received by all pensioners of his own grade in the United Kingdom whether they live in the United Kingdom or abroad. He is disqualified only if he wants to reside, not necessarily for the whole of his life bust regularly, in the country, maybe India or Tanganyika or anywhere, in which he earned his pension.

157

§ LORD MILVERTON
May I make one further comment? I cannot for the life of me understand—if it is Kenya we are taking—if his service was done in Kenya and he elects to go and live there, why he should not be given the privilege of what would probably happen in any case, of his pension being paid through a British bank in London and remitted by his own bank to him wherever he lives, whether in the Colony in which he served or not. I cannot see what ill effect a payment made in London would have on a man living in Kenya or on his fellow citizens in Kenya.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
I do not know whether it would have an ill-effect on them. But we made this agreement in 1955 with the Indian Government, who thought that, though it might not have any ill-effect on other Indian civil servants who were not citizens of the United Kingdom, it might appear invidious that a main who had done exactly the same service should get a higher pension or that his Indian pension should be supplemented by the United Kingdom although he was living in India under the same conditions as his Indian ex-civil servant colleagues. That is the principle we have always followed in dealing with independent territories which have formerly been under British administration.

§ THE EARL OF LUCAN
The noble Earl's example seems to show just as much invidiousness as the case of the expatriate officer living alongside the native officer. There might be two United Kingdom citizens who have served in the Colonial Service and both elect to live in Malta or Cyprus. One may have served part of his career in Malta or Cyprus and he would be debarred from receiving the supplementary. The other man, who might have served perhaps in Aden or Gibraltar but not in Malta or Cyprus, would be eligible. There seems to be just as much inconsistency and invidiousness. And the number of cases where there are native officers of the administration, now retired, of an equivalent rank to the United Kingdom retired officer must, I should have thought, be very small. India, was a special case and the Indian Civil Service for a long time past had been open to Indians. The same does not apply to the majority of the other colonial territories. All these things occur to one 158 and I must confess that I and my noble friend Lord Listowel do not feel at all convinced by the Government's case. However there is other business on the Paper and I think the Committee would prefer that we should abandon this rather hopeless battle, and I would therefore ask to withdraw the Motion.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
Amendment 1, which I started by moving, was, if I may coin a word, pre-consequential on Amendment No. 5 and this Amendment is pre-consequential on No. 6. I do not think I need spend much time on this, because two of your Lordships, Lord Colyton and Lord Killearn, towards the end of the Second Reading debate last week both urged, very reasonably, that we should bring into this Bill those ex-Egyptian civil servants who, before 1922, had not been in the service of the Egyptian Government—they might not even necessarily have been in Egypt—but who were employed by the British Government on business concerning Egypt. We have gone into the matter, and without going into a long description of the arguments affecting the case, we agree with the case submitted by my noble friends and ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, after ("in") insert ("or for").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

§ THE EARL OF LUCAN
I should like to say, on behalf of my noble friends, that we are all most appreciative of the Government's action in yielding to reason in what we think is an unanswerable case. We are very glad they have granted this concession.

§ LORD COLYTON
I do not know whether this is the right moment for me to say a word. of course these pensioners were pensioners of the Egyptian Civil Service in the time of the Agency, from the days of Lord Cromer down to 1914, when the Protectorate was declared—

A NOBLE LORD
Before 1922.

§ LORD COLYTON
—and then from the date of the declaration of the Protectorate at the end of 1914 until 1922, when Egypt acquired independence. I 159 have had several letters already from ex-Egyptian civil servants and their dependants showing almost touching gratitude for what the Government have decided to do for them. They really felt they had been forgotten in these matters. I am quite sure this decision of the Government to include this provision in the Bill will bring not only material assistance to the widows and children of these pensioners but very great satisfaction to them as well. I would thank Her Majesty's Government and my noble friend, not only for their understanding in accepting this proposal but also for the great promptitude with which it was inserted in the Bill at this late stage.

§ LORD KILLEARN
I should like to add my word of thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. We are indeed most grateful for the way our representations on this point have been met and much impressed by the promptitude with which they have been met. I should like to thank the noble Earl, whom I have, on occasion, had to press on these matters. On this occasion I have been more successful and I should like to thank him all the more for it.

§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE
I also would thank the noble Earl for the action he has taken, which is so satisfactory. I was one of the band which also pressed claims.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall be agreed to?

§ 3.50 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
I should like to address one remark to the Government on the Question, That this clause stand part of the Bill. This clause will enable the Minister to make regulations to carry out the provisions of the Bill in relation to the recipients of the supplementary pensions. I would ask the Government whether, in the framing of these regulations, they would consult the representatives of the pensioners concerned. I am thinking of the representatives of the Overseas Pensioners' Association, but I am sure that the general principle of consultation is right. A good employer consults the trade union to which his employees belong, sometimes about policy, but certainly in the implementation of policy. Consulta- 160 tion of this kind is one of the marks of the good employer. Therefore, I hope that the Government, which did not consult the representatives of the overseas pensioners at the stage of formulating the policy, before the provisions affecting them were included in the Bill, will at least consult them in the actual implementation of the policy in the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
The whole purpose of this Bill, as I explained to your Lordships on Second Reading, is that the Government wish to act as a good employer would act; and, without entering into any lengthy argument on what the noble Earl has said, I will gladly represent his observations to my right honourable friend the First Secretary.

§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

§ Remaining clauses agreed to.

§ Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

§ Schedule 3 [Overseas pensions]:

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
This Amendment is consequential, as I explained to your Lordships on Amendment No. 1, which we have already discussed. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page I1, line 11, leave out from ("who") to end of line 16 and insert ("in the opinion of the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, entered the service of that Government in a pensionable capacity before 17th July, 1954.").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
The last Amendment was on the Sudan. This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 4, concerning the ex-Egyptian civil servants, which we discussed a moment ago. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 11, line 16, at end insert— ("3. A pension in respect of service under the Egyptian Government by a person who, in the opinion of the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, entered the service of that Government in a pensionable capacity before 15th March 1922, and who was a British subject when he entered such service.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
About a fortnight ago, my noble friend Lord Saltoun represented to me that, in the 161 view of the Chief Justice of Sarawak, the Bill as drafted might not be quite watertight verbally. He represented this point on Second Reading, as also did my noble friend Lord Milverton, and I replied that the Government did not think that there could be any doubt about this clause, but that, if there were, we would introduce an Amendment. We still do not feel that there is any real doubt about it, but in view of the questions which have been asked we can see no harm in introducing the amended form of words proposed in this Amendment. I do not think that we lose anything by inserting the proposed new words, and perhaps it will allay the apprehensions of anybody who feels that there may be any dubiety on the subject. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 11, line 17, leave out from ("pension") to ("the") in line 18 an insert ("for the payment of which the Crown assumed responsibility under").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

§ Schedule 4 [Pension Funds added to Pensions (India, Pakistan and Burma) Act, 1955, Schedule 2, Part I, paragraph 1]:

§ On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be agreed to?

§ LORD HAILEY
I hope your Lordships will pardon me for my delay in asking a question on Schedule 4, but it is a question of great importance. In regard to the recipients of additional pensions under this Schedule, it is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum that certain sections of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, will apply to the supplementary or additional pensions given to recipients under the Indian Civil Service Pensions Acts. One of the implications, as explained in the Memorandum, is that the increased pension will not be paid in the case of widows unless they exceed 40 years of age, or are in bad health or have dependants.
I am asking whether we are right in assuming that these provisions of the 1959 Act will be applied to pensioners under the Indian Civil Service Family Pension Funds. The reason I ask is that these funds, as detailed in Schedule 4, are funds which were entirely con- 162 tributed by members of the Service: they are not Government funds at all. It so happens that one portion of these funds has been transferred to the charge of commissioners in Great Britain, the capital being handed over to them for the purpose of payment to the annuitants. Another section which has not been so treated is annuitants who receive money paid by the Government of India annually. That is the only difference between them.
These two funds are both of very old standing. They have never contained any restriction in point of age of widowers receiving annuities under them. What possible justification is there now for assuming that the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, will actually apply in this respect to them—an entirely new condition imported into a fund which was not a Government fund at all? I agree that it applies only to the increased pensions which are now given, and for which we have every reason to be grateful; nevertheless, it is an entirely new principle imported into the conditions of these funds. I beg to ask for some clarification of this position. Is it really the intention that the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, should apply or not, and for what reason?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, for raising this point. The general provisions governing the age of payment of pensions increase to widows will apply to Indian widows. United Kingdom Service widows' pensions are contributory as to one half. Indian Civil Service widows' pensions are fully contributable, and I gather the noble Lord's point is whether the Indian Civil Service widows will be subject to less favourable treatment now than they have received before. If that is not the noble Lord's point, then I have not rightly understood him. But I will certainly look into it and see whether there is any justification for what he has said. Of course, there would not be any justification for improving the existing provisions under this Bill in regard to Indian Civil Service widows' pensions. If I take the noble Lord's point rightly, he is suggesting that there may be some adverse discrimination against them under this Bill compared with what they are receiving now. Is that right?

163

§ LORD HAILEY
No. I agree that there will be no discrimination in that respect—namely, in respect of the pensions they are receiving now. But there will be a discrimination of a new kind applied to the increased pensions they will receive under this Act.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
I think your Lordships will see that that is slightly different from what I had mistakenly apprehended the noble Lord's point to be. The increased payments under this Act are an ex-gratia payment by the Government in consideration of the fact that inflation has eroded the real value of pensions. In that case, as there is no question of interfering with the rights of pensions to which people have fully contributed, I think I should have to consider that point further before replying to the noble Lord. I will consider it before another stage of the Bill, but in view of the noble Lord's explanation I am not sure that there is any reason for altering the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE
Before he left the House on a previous engagement, my noble friend Lord Saltoun asked me to say how grateful he was for the inclusion of Amendment No. 7.

§ Schedule 4 agreed to.

§ House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.