§ 72. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement about the effect on Civil Service and Armed Forces non-contributory pensions of his proposals for national superannuation.
§ Mr. CrossmanI will, with permission, answer Question No. 72.
Yes, Sir. On 5th November, 1969, in reply to a supplementary question by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—[Vol. 790, c. 1019]—I assured him that the Government had no intention of cutting back on the occupational pension schemes of the Civil Service and Armed Forces or substituting a contributory scheme for those schemes.
I regret that I put this in a way which has led to some misunderstanding. Certainly, the Government have never contemplated that the new State scheme of contributory insurance might supersede these occupational schemes; but, as I explained in my main statement of 5th November, it would make no sense at all to reshape the public service schemes without taking into account the important part to be played by the new State scheme.
Indeed, as I went on to say, we regard it as essential to ensure by careful coordination that the pensioner
…gets the right benefits from the two schemes, State and occupational, taken together, without avoidable gaps or duplication".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1969; Vol. 790, c. 1015.]This will be our approach in discussing the future shape of the public service schemes with the staff representatives, and I am informed by my noble Friend, the Lord Privy Seal, that detailed proposals prepared against this background have now been put to the Civil Service Staff Side.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterWhile thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his letter and for his courtesy in answering this 912 Question, may I ask him whether the substitution of a contributory, and indeed a redistributive, pension for part of a non-contributory pension does not amount to a reduction in the advantage of terms of service? In view of the present difficulties of recruitment both for the Armed Forces and the administrative class of the Civil Service, would it not be wiser not to tamper with them; and will he repeat the assurance which he inadvertently gave on 5th November?
§ Mr. CrossmanI do not think that I have anything to add to my statement, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the offer and the response of the Civil Service unions. I think it unlikely that the unions would agree to what the right hon. Gentleman described as a cutback in pensions.
§ Sir G. NabarroBefore framing that interesting Answer, did the right hon. Gentleman consult N.A.L.G.O., a trade union which is particularly afflicted by his original proposals? Did he note that in his Answer he referred to only the Civil Service? Would he extend that statement to the Civil Service and local government service?
§ Mr. CrossmanI was asked about the Civil Service and the Armed Forces and I should have said both. I could, however, have added local government as well.
§ Mr. DeanDoes the right hon. Gentleman now mean, in effect, that there will be a cutback in the pension schemes of the Civil Service and the Armed Forces? If so, does he realise that the long period of negotiating which will take place will have a bad effect on recruitment to those services?
§ Mr. CrossmanI do not think that I would read that into my statement, which was carefully drafted and which leaves a possibility for negotiation, which has now started. I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Civil Service unions are very well prepared to make sure, as I am sure they will, that the settlement is satisfactory to them in terms of their pension rights.