HL Deb 04 March 1969 vol 300 cc79-94

6.40 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ST. HELENS in the Chair.] Clause I agreed to.

Clause 2 [Extension and amendment of previous Pensions (Increase) Acts]:

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall be agreed to?

LORD GRIDLEY

My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for very long on this matter, but my noble friend Lord Selkirk has asked me to say, in his absence, a few words regarding certain officers under these regulations. I am referring to former officers of Achimota College, the Nigerian Coal Corporation and the Lagos Town Council. In the 1962 Act a supplement to or a topping-up of pensions was granted to former members of Her Majesty's Over-sea Civil Service. At the time this was given to meet the existing cost of living, and the consequent devaluation of the purchasing power of the pensions. In spite of many representations, the supplement granted under the 1962 Act to overseas civil servants and pensioners has so far been denied to officers of Achimota College, though it is hard to believe that, at the time of their recruitment, these men were in any different category from those being recruited normally for other overseas service.

I have always understood that the qualification for pensionable status was that the officer concerned was recruited originally by the Crown Agents for the Colonies, on the instruction of the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that the service offered was employment on pensionable terms. In the case of Achimota College, there was a Statutory Ordinance in 1930, and it has been argued that under its terms officers were recruited for university service and not engaged for a direct Government Department. If one examines the main principles of that Statute, it seems that the then Secretary of State was delegating his powers to the Governor in Council, and that if there was a difference it was of little substance.

Under that Statute, the Principal of the College was appointed by the Governor, but with the approval of the Secretary of State. Pensionable staff were appointed by the Governor, with the approval of the Government. Appointments could not be terminated except with the approval of the Governor, officers were subject to the disciplinary procedures of the Government, and the Governor in Council was to declare the pensionable posts which were to be in existence. The Government's pensionable ordinance and the widows' and orphans' pensionable ordinance were to apply to all officers. This was a condition binding on all officers of the Colonial Service, and as it applied to the officers of Achimota College it is difficult to believe that their term of employment was in any way different from that which was in force for all such officers recruited at that time. In view of this, I cannot believe that any officer recruited to the Achimota College post-1930 would have considered his pensionable status inferior to that of any other officer recruited for service overseas anywhere else at that period.

As I said, they have been denied the supplement, because it is argued that the College became subject to the Statutory Ordinance of 1930 which I have mentioned. But these men were in every sense servants of the Crown. They are, and were, loyal Government servants, and they can turn nowhere for help, in the plight in which they find themselves, except to the British Government.

To come to another aspect of Government service, I now want to refer to the former Nigerian Coal Corporation. In this case, members of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service were given the option either to remain in that service, or to transfer to the Coal Corporation. When the offer was made, each civil servant received a letter in clear, explanatory terms signed by the Chairman of the Coal Corporation. In addition, to give it greater force, that letter had the approval of the Government of Nigeria and the then Secretary of State. Specific assurances were given on the following most important points. Each officer was told that service with the Corporation would be no less attractive than in his present form of employment; that is to say, in the Civil Service. He would suffer no loss of the rights or benefits which would normally accrue to him. Pensionable status, which officers would have enjoyed had they remained in Government service, would in no way be diminished. Those were the terms of the letter. But this has not occurred. These guarantees have not been carried out, and no supplement has been paid to any of those officers.

The last case is that of the Lagos Town Council. To go into the history of that, one finds that between 1916 and 1938 staff for the Council were recruited by the Crown Agents, and the posts were declared to be pensionable by the Governor-in-Council with the sanction of the Secretary of State. These men, too, have received no supplement, though officers of the Town Council contributed to the Government's Widows' and Orphans' Pension Scheme as was required of every officer who joined the Colonial Service, who was under the instructions of the Secretary of State and the Crown Agents for the Colonies.

In view of what was said in Standing Committee on February 4 in another place, I hope that the Government are prepared to look into these cases with sympathy and consideration. Of course, it is only too easy, as an after-thought, to plead the existence of anomalies. But what I think is not denied on all sides is that there has been hardship and inequity in these cases. These men are loyal former servants of the Crown, whom Parliament surely has a duty to protect, and I was gratified in the Second Reading debate to hear the great tributes which the noble Lord the Leader of the House paid to all former civil servants of the Crown. I know that in this respect we have his sympathies. If the noble Lord could give me some assurance that the cases I have mentioned will receive the sympathetic consideration of Her Majesty's Government, then I and the officers concerned would be most grateful.

6.48 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

This is one of those difficult areas, where anyone concerned with administering pensions schemes, or similar arrangements of that kind, is desperately seeking for principle and consistency in the administration of the various provisions. There is, of course, a certain continuing measure of consistency all the way through in regard to overseas pensioners, except that in the last two Acts, and in this Act, further concessions have been made. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, will acknowledge that there is now a concession with regard to overseas pensioners who are living in any country in the world, whereas in the past it was more restricted, and this adds to the cost.

Before I come to the position of Achimota College, perhaps I may explain the general position with regard to the overseas pensioner who has transferred from Crown service into some other form of service. Of course, he receives the full British supplement appropriate to his overseas pension in respect of his central Government service, in the same way and subject to the same conditions as other Crown service pensioners. But the pensioner does not qualify for a British supplement in respect of the pension arising from his service after he left Crown service, and I know the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, understands this very well. As a general rule, the pensioners concerned were not compulsorily transferred from central Government service to the new statutory body, but were seconded to its service. During the period of the secondment, they were then offered a choice, either of transferring to the new body or of reverting to the service of the Crown.

I admit that there is a certain element of "Hobson's Choice" in this, and I do not wish to take too strong a stand upon it. Although it is recognised that they were encouraged to transfer, they were free to revert and were then, if possible, found suitable employment. If none was available, they were retired on enhanced pension terms. If they agreed to transfer to the new statutory body, they were normally guaranteed and enjoyed no less favourable terms than they had when in Crown service. But the guarantee could not and did not extend to the British pensions supplements, which are not part of an officer's service overseas. Although the overseas pensioners concerned are not so well off as Her Majesty's Civil Service pensioners, they are no worse off than they would have been if they had retired at the date of transfer from Crown service. They have not been discriminated against by their overseas employers, since they receive from them the full pensions to which they were entitled by their service plus the same pensions increases as the overseas employers pay to their indigenous pensioners. It is difficult to make any distinction.

I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said about Achimota College, and I should like to study the matter more closely. My information suggests that, notwithstanding the powerful presentation that these employees were in no different position from those who were not in the Civil Service, they were recruited by Crown Agents. This is not a criterion, since they recruit for a variety of overseas bodies. The terms of service provided by Statute said clearly that the hiring and firing of the staff rested with the Council of the College, and not with the Secretary of State. Those who were employed before 1930, and who were compulsorily transferred to the newly based College, were given unique conditions and guarantees and have been given greater pension supplements. The position is the same with regard to Lagos Town Council.

I do not feel that what I have to say will bring much comfort to the noble Lord, but knowing that the matter was going to be raised (I thought by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, although the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, with his great knowledge of these matters, has put the case well), and having studied again the principles which have been applied, I do not see how Her Majesty's Government could depart from those principles without driving an enormous hole into the whole system governing pensions for Crown service. I certainly undertake to look at this matter again, but it would be misleading to hold out any hope to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, passed me a note about Indian Civil Servants. I understand that they are provided for under slightly different provisions in Schedule 2.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Pensions Qualifying for Increase under Section 1; Table of Percentage Increases]:

6.55 p.m.

LORD BOURNE moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 12, leave out line 5 and insert— (" Not later than 1st July 1945 … 25 per cent. After 1st July 1945 but not later than 1st July 1955 … IS per cent.")

The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment since I felt that it was generally agreed on all sides of the House that the pre-war pensioners of the Civil Service, especially the pre-war pensioners and their widows under the 1919 Code in the Armed Forces—that is to say, those from 1919 up to 1945—deserve better treatment than they receive in the Bill. During the debate on Second Reading I pointed to the effect of these Pensions (Increase) Bills, with their escalating scales of percentage increases, on the smaller pensioners. It is nobody's fault, but the result is that the pre-war pensioners will get further behind every time there is a Pensions (Increase) Bill.

When I suggested one or two ways of remedying this situation the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, said that he thought there were better ways of doing it, namely, by increasing the percentages at the top end of the scale. That is what my Amendment proposes. I propose 25 per cent. instead of 18 per cent. for the pre-1945 men and women. I will not go over all that was said during the Second Reading, except to say that although we accept the intended generosity in the Bill, there are in it very real snags to people in that category. I mentioned that they were getting further behind and that the numbers involved are fairly considerable. There are in fact 99.000 of them. The actual figures are 7,000 officers, 42,000 other ranks, 5,000 widows and 45.000 civil servants, all of whom are affected by my Amendment.

On Second Reading I drew attention to the two elements which the Government have agreed should be catered for in pensions increase legislation. First of all, these increases are to deal with the cost of living and price rises, and, secondly, they are to give a share in the increasing standard of living or prosperity. I can do no better than quote what was said by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury three years ago during the proceedings on an earlier pensions increase provision. He put it very well indeed by saying: We are responsible for the management of the public services and are, therefore, concerned to see that public service pensioners do not, as a result of inflation, suffer hardship—whether in absolute terms, if their pensions will no longer buy the necessities of life, or relative hardship, if their pensions will no longer give them the standard of living which they had earned through their years of service and to which they had reasonably looked forward when they retired."— [OFFICAL REPORT, Commons, 18/11/65; col. 1352.] Those are the points which are sought to be covered in my Amendment.

I should like to take the examples of a captain and a major-general, examples which I mentioned during the Second Reading debate. The pre-war captain, before the Bill, was drawing £560. Under the Bill as it stands he will draw £661. Under the amendment with the 25 per cent. he would get £700, an increase of £140 instead of £101. He, your Lordships will remember, is already 50 per cent. behind on his standard of living, and senior officers are even further behind. In case anyone thinks that this is being a shade generous, I may say that to-day's captain draws £895, which is considerably more than £700. To quote the major-general similarly: before this Bill he was drawing £1,618; under the Bill he will draw £1,910; and under the 25 per cent. Amendment proposed he would draw £2,023, which is an increase of £405 instead of £292—rather better. But he is nowhere near the present-day major-general, who would be drawing £2,720. I maintain that my proposal is no more than the justice, the common reward, which we have all agreed we should pay these people.

My remarks apply even more strongly to the widows, many of whom draw not maximum widows' pensions but minimum widows' pensions—very small sums indeed. I quoted the case of a widow of a lieutenant-colonel who died very shortly after World War I and who had to draw supplementary benefit.

LORD SHACKLETON

May I interrupt the noble Lord? Is he talking about the widow of a lieutenant-colonel who died? Because on the last occasion he talked about the widow of a lieutenant-colonel who was killed; and, of course, war-widows' pensions do provide parity, and. this rather confused me.

LORD BOURNE

I apologise for confusing your Lordships and the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I should have said "died" instead of "was killed". It is much the same thing when you actually do it.

To sum up, I should like to move this Amendment in order to enable this very hard-hit section of the community, both retired Armed Forces people and civil servants, to catch up slightly on the figures which I gave, before they are totally forgotten under the earnings-related scheme which is coming upon us pretty soon, and also before the review takes place on April 1, 1971, as was promised in another place. I reckon that we ought to do the catching up before this takes place. If I am told that this would involve giving some other ranks and some civil servants of a lower grade rather more than people retiring to-day, then I suggest it is a very small price to pay. The cost of my Amendment would be less than half-a-million pounds. I beg to move.

LORD THURLOW

I will not take up a moment, but I should like to support my noble and gallant friend in his Amendment. I have addressed your Lordships on two occasions before on this subject, when my own Party was in power, but I regret that nothing was done for these old .and rapidly-aging pensioners. I hope that the Government will have a look at this and will try to do something on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, because I feel that this category has been very harshly treated in these days when the cost of living has risen so much higher in a very short period. If something could be done now to bring their pensions up to a more reasonable level then future examinations of the whole pensions problem would be much easier and a great deal of happiness would be generated all round.

There is one point which is very important, and that is that, whoever is in power, we are always trying to get the best type of officers and men into the Armed Forces; and those of us who have served in the Armed Forces are constantly being asked by our friends whether the career is still worth going into. One of the reasons put forward against it by so many people is the way that pensions have dropped so far behind the cost of living. I ask the Government to consider this and to try to give a favourable answer to my noble and gallant friend Lord Bourne.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

All my sympathies are with my noble and gallant friend's Amendment. I spoke in similar terms on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the only reason why I did not seek to table an Amendment of a similar kind on the Committee stage was because I frankly felt that there would be no chance of an Amendment making any substantial difference to the finance of the Bill being accepted in another place. I have to confess that I have not the familiarity with the 1919 Code for Service pensions which is enjoyed by my noble and gallant friend. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that there is widespread public sympathy for those people who retired many years ago and who are now having to live on pensions which, judged by modern standards, everybody would consider inadequate.

I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will help us by explaining what the practical effect of this Amendment would be in different cases. My belief is that in the case of Service pensions and in the case of the pensions of the higher civil servants it would be wholly reasonable and fully to be supported. I suspect—I do not know for sure, but I am familiar with the ease with which one can create anomalies through pensions increase proposals—that, as my noble and gallant friend said, it might raise the pensions of some of the less well paid but long-retired civil servants above the pensions that would be enjoyed by men and women of the same rank who retired considerably later. May I suggest that we should try to find a way through this? It is unreasonable that we should stop short of doing justice to certain categories of people because if we applied an overall percentage increase it would bring the pensions of certain other people out of line. I quite realise that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has to apply himself to the Amendment on the paper and not to some hypothetical Amendment such as I am adumbrating, but I strongly suspect that this will not be the last Pensions (Increase) Bill.

From personal experience, I have the highest admiration for those in the Civil Service who have to specialise in this subject. They need wonderfully clear minds and they need the most comprehensive knowledge—and, of course, they are restricted, as we all realise, by Chancellors of the Exchequer, who can make only limited amounts of money available. From time to time there have been new initiatives in Pensions (Increase) Bills, not all of which have been as successful as others; but what I am submitting is that we should now seek a new initiative, a new departure, by which we could find an expedient, a device, to do justice to those people who have retired long since and whose pensions are, as I have said, unworthy in present public estimation, without creating the anomalies that a flat percentage increase would induce for certain other ranks. That is the best contribution that I can make to this debate, but I feel quite sure that your Lordships ought not to let go of this subject until we have found some means of meeting the very powerful case that my noble and gallant friend has made.

LORD SHACKLETON

First of all, may I say that I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken, and I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. As I have said before, no one has fought more strongly on this subject than he has, and I very much appreciate, despite the strength of his feeling, the moderation with which he puts his case, which does not suffer in effect as a result. Let me preface my remarks by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that he rather gave the impression that we were doing nothing for these older pensioners. When he reads his remarks, he will find that he said that we must do something. This Bill does something; it increases their pensions by 18 per cent. I will go on to analyse the consequences of this particular Amendment and I will seek to meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, because, fairly, he put his finger on some of the difficulties that are involved. May I say that I appreciate his remarks with regard to those who have to work this out. It is a fact that it is to-day the Civil Service Department and not the Treasury who are responsible—although the Treasury is always with us.

My Lords, there is one very important thing that I wish to make clear. We are not talking about war pensions; we are not talking about war widows' pensions. It is really important to get this across—although I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was speaking in a particular context when he talked about the widow of the colonel who was killed in action as opposed to the widow of the colonel who died. There is a very different position here. Although the noble Lord said that it is all the same to the individual, I am quite sure that he would not advocate that we should assimilate the position of those with disability pensions or war widows' pensions with the generality. This is something which the nation has decided is a case for special provision; and parity is provided in these circumstances. Therefore, although this is related primarily to the Services, we are talking about people who have died not as a result of action; people whose death is in no way attributable to their service. In this respect their position is the same whether they be civil servants, serving airmen or serving soldiers or officers.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, argued his case in a most persuasive way. He was saying that we ought to be doing more for the pensioner of longer standing who retired 24 or more years ago. Although words are not enough, I stress that he is far from being alone in his anxious concern for these people. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I have no doubt that if there were any satisfactory way, within reasonable limits of cost, of bringing more assistance to those who have fared so ill in the past there is none of us who would hesitate for a moment to back it. But the situation is infinitely more complicated than has been suggested. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has in any way sought to be unfair; he has always accepted the fact that there are complications. But, my Lords, there can be complications so great as to cause one so say: "We cannot proceed along these lines; we must find another way." The difficulty is in trying to find another way.

May I first deal with the question of cost? Successive Governments, the previous Government and this one, have brought in ever more costly measures over the years to improve the position of public service pensioners; but however far they have found it possible to go the standard emotion expressed in debate is always one of regret that they have not been able to carry the matter a step further. This is a reaction that we all understand and about which none of us would complain. If I may say so, I think it is right to recognise tint the new commitment in this field of £34 million (at a time of severe economic stringency) represents quite a considerable burden; but it is one that we recognise as right. The increases proposed by the Bill have been planned to distribute these resources in as equitable a way as possible with particular attention to the needs of the older pensioners.

The noble Lord's Amendment would add a sum getting on for about £2 million to this cost. It is always easy to say, "What is £2 million against a sum of the magnitude of £34 million?" But the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, knows that one cannot conduct the control of public expenditure on this basis. And, my Lords, it is not only the cost of the noble Lord's Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, recognised last week (and again to-day) this is a subject of great complexity. Indeed, the more I have gone into this subject the more I am hound to say that there is very little about it that is straightforward. It is simply not the case that one can identify all the pre-July, 1945, pensioners as a group that has done particularly badly and that one can justify an increase for them substantially larger than that for any other group.

My Lords, I think I owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. He moved me enough the other day for me to say that whereas I did not like a flat rate increase, I should look—if I were to look at anything—at the escalator. I suspect that I may have encouraged him in a way which, from the Front Bench, perhaps was wrong. It was certainly with no intention of fobbing him off. We have examined this and we have looked closely at the proposal. There are, I freely recognise, those among our older pensioners for whom we should all like to think more could be done. I am not wanting merely to bandy figures with the noble Lord. hut this Amendment would create some quite intolerable anomalies and would intensify others.

It is, I think, well recognised that of those who retired under the 1919 Code, the other rank pensioners are more favourably placed than officers. We already have the rather astonishing anomaly —I say this particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who spoke of the other ranks—that the 1919 private is ahead of the current rate. The effect of the Amendment would be to put him still further ahead. But this is by no means all. The Amendment would create a completely new set of anomalies. The 1919 serjeant, when these new increases take effect will be only 3s, behind the current Code pensioner— that is, the person due to retire now would be put 3s. ahead. For retired officers on the 1919 Code, the Amendment would put a major's pension £30 ahead of a 1945 Code pension. Even at that level, therefore, the Amendment would carry the oldest pensioners ahead of the 1945 parity. Similar anomalies would occur on a wide scale in the public services. I give a single example. A clerical officer who retired at the end of 1939 would by the Amendment have his pension brought ahead of any subsequent pension for similar service up to and including one awarded at the end of 1967.

My Lords, some anomalies are inevitable, but I think we must agree that they have to be contained within reasonable limits. Even if it were feasible to devote a further £2 million or so to this purpose I cannot think it would be right to distribute it in a way which would have such arbitrary consequences. I say to the noble Lord that I am not insensitive to what has been urged. We are very well aware of his concern which I think the whole Committee shares. I should like to emphasise that with the 1965 Act following on earlier Acts, and again under this Bill, those affected by the Amendment receive increases which, at least so far as this period is concerned, more than fully compensate them for the rise in the cost of living since the previous measure took effect. So at least they are, if anything, slightly better off relatively than they were under the previous pension arrangements. Taking the two measures together, they will have received an improvement in the purchas- ing power of their pensions of getting on for 10 per cent. Some of them have still a long way to go, and this we do not dispute, but I would draw attention to this figure because it underlines the point that at least we have reversed the trend of earlier years and got these pensions moving in the right direction. So at least the anomalies are not getting worse.

The great difficulty confronting any Government is that the moment they want to start looking fundamentally at proposals for pensions, they realise that they are about to embark on a very major study. I have already informed your Lordships that as soon as we have brought this Bill into effect we intend to get down to a detailed study of the whole problem with the genuine intention of trying to find some better way forward for the future. In the course of this study we shall examine carefully how best to do full justice to all our pensioners, but especially to those who have suffered longest the erosion of their pensions, without at the same time providing unjustifiably large increases for some groups or placing unreasonably heavy burdens on the taxpayer in circumstances where, as this Amendment would propose, the case is not made out as compared with current pensioners. It will, of course, be the taxpayers and ratepayers who have to pay for this, and the problems are not easy, but I want to stress that we intend, and I know that my officials intend, to tackle them with resolution.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, will say, "Well, it will be too late for some people", and that is a powerful and heart-moving argument. I can only say that we have done the best we believe to be possible. I stress again that we are not talking about those with war pensions; we are talking of those who are retired and in many respects comparable to people in civilian life. One has to remember that, again before the war, the widow of an other rank got no pension at all. I accept that there is here a powerful argument with regard to the way the burden has fallen on the pensioners in the higher ranks, but I can only say that they will benefit quite considerably from this Bill and that we certainly intend to try to work—though it will not be a short process—for what I hope will be a more equitable basis.

LORD BOURNE

We have heard the noble Lord the Leader of the House say why the Government are unable to accept this Amendment. I very well understand the reasons. There is a slight discrepancy in the figures, because, in answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place, the actual cost for the Armed Forces of the 25 per cent.—or levelling up to 1945 which is pretty nearly the same thing—was given as £300,000. So I find it difficult to believe that the civil servants cost the difference between that and £2 million. At the same time, I have to admit that figures are very difficult to establish in this flatter and I think we should leave them out.

We have all said that we want to help this section of the community because it is a deserving section, but sometimes I wonder whether we remember the things that are said by the Government and by us all about keeping pace with the cost of living and sharing in the rising prosperity. We say these things, but there are examples which I quoted to show that although there is an increase, and even an increase in the increase, as the noble Leader has told us, over the successive Pension (Increase) Acts, the fact remains that these people are getting further behind. I still think that we ought to remember them. I should very much like to introduce the captain whom I mentioned to the postman to whom the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred as keeping up with the cost of living. My captain is 50 per cent. behind, and has been suffering for quite a long time. He is a "pre-war model".

It is agreed that any time you try to help these people, whether by a levelling up process or a flat-rate increase as was suggested the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, or by an increase in the percentages on the escalator as I have suggested this afternoon, unfortunately you create more anomalies. My point was, let us put up with the anomalies. We have not a very long period before the big earnings-related scheme comes along, and the people I am talking about, the pre-war pensioners, are too old to draw National Insurance or to be affected by the earnings-related scheme. They may be forgotten. I sincerely hope, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that we shall have another Pensions (Increase) Act following on the review promised us in 1971, and that even more attention will then be paid to this matter than the Government have paid this time. I beg leave to withdraw—

LORD SHACKLETON

Before the noble Lord asks leave to withdraw his Amendment, may I say that we have listened to what he said, but I must stress again that the Government have not forgotten these pensioners. The trend has been reversed. Something is being done, though it is not as much as many of us would like to do. But I do not think that it should be allowed to he said that nothing has been done and that steps have not been taken at least to halt the erosion and claw a little back.

LORD BOURNE

I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that assurance and to say that hope we shall be able to have discussions with him and the Minister of Defence about how to help this section of the community on whose behalf I put down the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.