HL Deb 13 December 1965 vol 271 cc507-10

3.54 p.m.

Second Reading debate continued.

LORD SORENSEN

My Lords, I appreciate very much indeed the attitude taken by both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in this matter, and I shall try to conform to that brevity of which I understand I gave an excellent example this afternoon. I am very glad to say that the noble Lord referred not critically to Mr. George Brown's efforts to implement a prices and incomes policy. I am particularly appreciative of that fact, because there are those who I am afraid are not always so encouraging of the efforts of Mr. George Brown as the noble Lord is. We all appreciate how difficult it is to implement this policy. The Government preceding the present one strove valiantly in their own way to do what they could, but frequently failed. I have every hope that ultimately Mr. George Brown will not fail, particularly if he secures the encouragement and the help of members of our British community and of all Parties—because this is, in effect, a non-Party matter.

I would just mention, however, in regard to the noble Lord's allusion to the increase in bus fares, that this may be partially offset by the decision of the Government to enable certain corporations and other undertakings running bus traffic to reduce the fares to pensioners.

In any case, it is but one of the many factors that have to be taken into consideration in the review now taking place; and I hope that at a very early date we shall have at least some indication of what the conclusions of that review are likely to be. Such a review, comprehensive as it must be, is surely essential: and I have heard, not merely from my own Party but from other Parties, recognition that this review is very necessary. Therefore, I trust that all Parties will in due course come to appreciate the constructive contribution that will be made by this review. Reference was made to the decision of the Government, implemented in this particular Bill, no longer to continue to base their increases on a flat-rate increase for certain categories. On the other hand, of course, there is this proposal to increase by 16 per cent.; and, on the whole, it is thought that this is much more advantageous to the beneficiaries under this Bill.

So far as parity is concerned, that of course will involve us in a lengthy discussion. We are all aware of the discussions which have already taken place on that matter. May I very briefly state that there are two main reasons why the Government cannot accept this proposal of parity at this present time, whatever may be done in the future? The first is that the Bill is intended as an interim measure pending a fundamental ruling, as I have said, in the light of the future shape of the National Insurance scheme. Full parity up to the present 1965 levels would cost £109 million a year, and that in itself would cause us all to hesitate at this juncture. Secondly, so far as the issue of parity is concerned, the Government do not believe that parity up to 1965 is necessarily the right way with the limited resources which are available at the present time. But clue note has been taken of what the noble Lord has said, and no doubt this matter, also, will fall within the orbit of the consideration of those engaged in the review.

I would also add, in regard to the noble Lord's comments on the proposal to lower the age from what it is now to 55, or thereabouts, that this, again, is a question of money—whether we should at this juncture afford what is involved in such a proposal. The Government feel that at this particular point this is out of the question, and that the monies already devoted to the proposal in the Bill are about as far as it is possible to go at the present time.

So far as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is concerned, he certainly gave us food for thought, and I would submit to him that, if he has not already done so (possibly he has done so), those particular points, intricate as they are, might be submitted to the Minister for further consideration. On the other hand, I think it is as well to appreciate that the previous Government were themselves acquainted with this precise problem, which he brought to their attention, and that they rejected his proposals, probably for very good reasons; and where there are two Governments, as different in so many respects as a Labour Government and a Conservative Government, there must be substantial reasons for that rejection.

Further, I would say this in regard to one other matter which the noble Lord brought to our attention. The general underlying principle of paragraph 3 of Schedule III to the 1962 Pensions (Increase) Act is that the officer concerned shall have been in the service of the Crown. This distinction between Crown service and other service has frequently been applied by successive Secretaries of State for the Colonies in relation to claims for compensation and claims in respect of terms of service made on them by British officers serving in overseas territories with local government authorities and statutory corporations.

It has been a matter of consistent Government policy for many years to recognise a special measure of responsibility for those overseas officers who were recruited by a Secretary of State or on his behalf for the services of Central Government overseas; and the decision taken in 1962 by the preceding Government to provide pensions supplements was, in fact, an extension of this policy of providing safeguards and pensions to those servants of the Crown. The fact that some overseas local government officers were recruited through the Crown Agents does not make them Secretary of State's officers or imply that the British Government were responsible for their appointments or for their conditions of service. The Crown Agents act in this capacity for a wide variety of Government and statutory corporations and other bodies.

In essence, the Government will be maintaining the same principle overseas as that which is recognised to apply at home; namely, that the Exchequer should bear a direct financial responsibility for increased Government pensions. If we were to accept that pensioners of other bodies were, in principle, eligible for increase or supplement at the direct expense of the Exchequer it would be impossible to contain the potential liabilities; and the consequences, both abroad and at home, could be very expensive indeed. I can assure the noble Lord, however, that when I read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow I will do what I can to give him a considered reply. I am incapable of giving this to-day precisely because the particular matter elaborated is so complex and intricate; and there are many other points which will also have that necessary attention. But the points that have been raised—and no doubt other points, too —will receive due consideration on the Committee stage of the Bill. Therefore, with apologies, if I have failed to answer any question that I should have answered, may I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.