HC Deb 30 June 1891 vol 354 cc1840-7

Order for Third Reading read (Queen's consent, and Prince of Wales's consent, as Duke of Cornwall signified).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

*(3.15.) MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time upon this day three months. I am very sorry to find myself again compelled to refer to this Bill, but, in the interests of the ratepayers of London, I think it is necessary that I should do so. The part of the Bill to which I object is that which relates to the pensioning or superannuation of the officers of the County Council. When the Bill was before the House upon the Second Reading I drew attention to the fact that it was an omnibus Bill, which included a scheme for the pensioning of the officers of the Council, who number, I believe, from 3,000 to 4,000 persons. On that occasion the President of the Local Government Board expressed an opinion that a complete scheme of superannuation ought to be placed before the Committee upstairs, and inserted in the Bill. When the Bill went upstairs the question was certainly considered by the Committee, and I have no fault whatever to find with them; but they discovered, as I knew they would, that it was an extremely difficult thing to put a scheme for pensioning into a Bill of this nature. The matter was of so complicated a character that they preferred to ignore it altogether. When the Bill came back to the House I put an Amendment on the Paper, requiring that before the London County Council adopted any plan, it should be laid on the Table for a certain number of days in order that the House might see what the scheme was. This was a very reasonable proposal, but the County Council considered that it affected their dignity, and objected to it. At the same time they agreed to put on the Paper an Amendment to provide that a scheme should be laid upon the Table of the House. I consented to this course, and in order to save the time of the House I agreed that if the Amendment were passed I would raise no further difficulty. But when the Bill was re-committed, although a statement in writing was made by the Parliamentary Committee of the Council intimating that the Council accepted this course, curiously enough, although supported by the President of the Local Government Board, every Member of the Council who has a seat in the House-proceeded to vote against the Instruction, and it was not passed. Now, I cannot help thinking that considering the power given in this Bill means a scheme for the pensioning of an enormous number of persons, in which the rates of London are largely concerned, we ought to know something of the scheme which the London County Council propose to adopt. What are the facts of the case? The County Council, under the Bill, are to frame any scheme they like for the pensioning of their officers.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

Superannuation; not pensioning.

*MR. BARTLEY

The hon. Gentleman interrupts mo, and says "superannuation and not pensioning." I think that when the hon. Gentleman knows a little more of these matters he will find that pensioning and superannuation are very much the same thing. The proposal is, I believe, that one half of the cost and the whole of the guarantee are to come out of the rates. The County Council are to select who they like as members of the fund. It is not to be a matter of right that any officer of the Council is to come upon the fund but one of the clauses of the Bill provides that of their own free will the Council are to select who are to be eligible to be the members of the fund, I maintain that that is not a fair state of things. It is said that they already have power to give pensions to their officers. That may be so, but it is evident that they do not possess the powers they claim in this Bill or they would not come to this House for them. Then, again, I know it is invariably urged that whenever one says a word about the London County Council one is opposing them. I admit that I have no confidence in the Council as their affairs are at present managed, and I believe that to a great extent their action is guided by Party motives. A similar scheme of pension and superannuation has been promoted this year by the London School Board. The two bodies are very much on all fours. Both are elected by the ratepayers of London, and both have pension schemes before the House this year. The School Board not having the prestige of the County Council, have brought in their scheme in a Public Bill, and they claim that their plan will be self-supporting. But when the Committee upstairs came to investigate the scheme they were informed by an actuary that it was difficult to estimate the number of millions of loss which the scheme might not ultimately involve, the figures were so enormous.

*SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

When was the evidence given?

*MR. BARTLEY

It was given before the Committee on the London School Board Bill.

MR. LAWSON

I wish to put a question to you, Sir, on a point of order. Is the hon. Member at liberty to quote evidence that has not yet been reported to the House?

MR. SPEAKER

Am I to understand that the evidence which the hon. Gentleman is referring to has not been reported?

MR. LAWSON

That is really the fact.

*MR. BARTLEY

But although the evidence has not been reported to the House there were reporters present, and as it has been published in the public Press, I think I am fairly entitled to show that even a scheme of pensions which is called self-supporting, is likely to cost the ratepayers of London from £7,000,000 to £8,000,000 every generation. Nobody knows, as yet, what the scheme of the London County Council is, except that instead of being self-supporting one-half of the cost is to be paid out of the rates. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the London County Council will speak before the Debate closes, and will say that we ought to accept the decision of the Committee upstairs. We are not, however, called upon to accept any decision from the Committee upstairs, because they declared that the matter was so difficult that they declined to deal with it, and left the question of a scheme out of the Bill. It is only reasonable that the ratepayers of London should know what that scheme is. It is said that the matter is one which is entirely in the hands of the ratepayers; but that is not so. The present County Council will die in the course of a few months, and if this Bill passes before they die they will have the power of pensioning their own staff in any way they think proper. When in November or March next a new election takes place their successors will have no power to alter what has already been done. However many hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds the scheme may cost they will have no option in the matter except to pay whatever bill the present County Council may choose to saddle them with. I have no wish to say anything unpleasant in the matter, but as a London ratepayer and representing 100,000 of the poorest ratepayers in the Metropolis, I feel bound to protect their interests. It is, of course, no use to talk about decreasing the rates if schemes are to pass which will involve the expenditure of millions of money without the ratepayers knowing anything about what the schemes are. The London County Council have now arrived at the end of their life, and they are endeavouring to force through the House an Omnibus Bill to empower them to give what pensions they like. So far as we have been unable to get from the County Council or their Chairman or anybody what the scheme is which the Bill proposes to enable them to carry out, I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be this mystery and secrecy about the scheme, and in order to elicit some sort of explanation from the Chairman of the Council I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time on this day three months.

(3.25.) MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)

I beg to second the Amendment, but I think that if the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) will give an assurance that no scheme will be put in operation until after the next election of the County Council, everybody will be satisfied. Personally I have not the same distrust of the Council that my hon. Friend appears to have, and I am sure they will wish that the ratepayers should have some voice in the matter. As the elections will probably take place in, March next, I would venture to appeal to the right hon. Baronet to allow the ratepayers of London to say "aye" or "no" to any scheme of superannuation which may be proposed.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the question, to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

*(3.26.) SIR J. LUBBOCK

I hope to satisfy the House, and even my two hon. Friends who have moved and seconded the Amendment, that there is really no reason why this Bill should not be read a third time. The question divides itself into two parts—first, whether my hon. Friends have any just ground to complain of the action of the London County Council, and whether the superannuation scheme is one which they may fairly ask the House to assent to. In regard to the first point, I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) has not correctly stated the facts of the case. It was represented to us that those who objected would be satisfied if details of the scheme were laid upon the Table of the House, and the Parliamentary Agent of the Council was directed to write a letter to the President of the Local Government Board, in which he said that if it was considered desirable that the details of the scheme should be laid upon the Table the Council had no objection to do so, although it was an unusual course to take, and one which they did not think Parliament need require. When the matter came before the House this course was objected to by the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill, and the House came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to lay the scheme upon the Table. I regret that, owing to illness, I was not able to be present when the discussion took place. My hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) took part in it, not as a member of the County Council, but as a Metropolitan Member, and so also did the hon. Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes), who supported the Motion, but at the same time said that it would be inoperative, because it was only a Motion for a Return. Therefore, my hon. Friends have no reason to complain of the action which the London County Council took in the matter. I hope that I have now removed from the mind of my hon. Friend any idea that he has been treated unfairly or discourteously.

*MR. BARTLEY

I did not say unfairly.

*SIR J. LUBBOCK

I thought I should be able to satisfy my hon. Friend on that point; and I will now say a few words on the merits of the question itself. My hon. Friend has spoken of secrecy and mystery. There has been no mystery about the matter, for the scheme has appeared upon the agenda paper of the Council, has been sent to the vestries, and was submitted to the Committee upstairs. What the Council proposed to do was to follow the example of certain other Corporations and great railway companies, and to devise a plan that would be less burdensome upon the ratepayers than had been the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which paid the whole of the pensions on the rates. The whole reason for taking the power proposed in the Bill was to remove doubts as to whether workmen are included or not. Does my hon. Friend propose to exclude workmen from the benefits of the scheme?

*MR. BARTLEY

Certainly not.

*SIR J. LUBBOCK

Then I am glad to find that upon the second point we are not at issue. The question as to who are excluded or not under the law as it stands, has given rise to considerable legal difficulties, and has led to the introduction of these clauses into the present Bill. My hon. Friend asks me to agree to allow the matter to stand over until after the next election. The matter is a much smaller one than my hon. Friend supposes. It is one which will affect the comparatively few employés who have entered the service of the London County Council during the last two years, and I hope the House will not think it necessary to keep them in suspense. As to the Council being actuated by political motives, I would ask him to point out one single motion which has been passed by the Council which has not had direct reference to our own work. Finally, I would point out that the clauses which relate to the question of superannuation form only a small part of the Bill, and as I presume that my hon. Friend does not desire to reject the Bill altogether, I trust that after this explanation he will not persist with his Motion.

*MR. BARTLEY

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.