HC Deb 15 January 1971 vol 809 cc412-20

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Neave

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 19, line 10, at end insert: 'and (c) immediately after 1st April 1969, being an employee of the Science Research Council, was engaged in research in astrophysics at the Authority's laboratory at Culham or at any Science Research Council establishment (notwithstanding that such a person while in the employment of the Science Research Council may cease to be engaged in such activity)'. This is not the first time I have moved an Amendment of this character to a Bill of this kind. The last occasion was in 1965, when, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke); I moved a similar Amendment to the Science and Technology Bill in January of that year. I contend that the same principle applies in respect of this Measure.

Subsection (6) says, after certain references to persons who are to join the new companies: any such scheme may also apply to any person employed by the Science Research Council who (a) immediately before 1st April 1969 was an employee of the Authority engaged in research on astrophysics at the Authority's laboratory at Culham in the county of Oxford, and (b) on that date became an employee of the Science Research Council. This provision is inserted in a rather curious way since it makes no reference to new entrants. This was nearly the same position as that in which we found ourselves when staff employed at the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science were transferred to the Science Research Council in 1965.

The principle was then established. Although my Amendment was rejected in this House on that occasion, it was agreed to in another place and was agreed to when the Lords Amendments came back to this House, when I was then supported by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I contend that the principle regarding superannuation of the staff in a case of this kind has been established.

It was supposed as a result of the acceptance of that Amendment to the Science and Technology Bill in 1965 that it would cover future recruits not only to the Rutherford Laboratory but also to the Daresbury Laboratory in relation to the Science Research Council. In fact, the Government have chosen only the Rutherford Laboratory in this respect. One of the arguments was that that laboratory was only a short distance from Harwell—over the wire, so to speak—and that some people were doing the same kind of work.

However, this is not a satisfactory reason for turning down other claims to be included in the Authority's pension scheme. It is curious to find this problem cropping up again in the Bill, but it still remains important. Even though the number of persons referred to in the Amendment are small, the point of principle should be seriously considered by the Government. They will not be following logically the main Act since, although the Atomic Energy Authority Bill with which we are now dealing is important, it is a subsidiary Bill to the main Science and Technology Act, 1965, which deals with superannuation questions. If the present subsection (6) becomes law it will prejudice any future decision about Daresbury, a decision which has yet to be taken. That is a serious consideration.

There is no reason why staff who work at Culham and who are employees of the Science Research Council should not be covered by the same wording; that is to say, as new entrants. I do not claim that this is an identical situation with the N.R.N.S. staff being transferred to Rutherford Laboratory but it is similar. Therefore, it is departing from principle to leave the wording of Clause 20 as it is.

I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this Amendment seriously and will accept it. I hope that, if necessary, it will be pressed in the same way as was the Amendment moved to the Science and Technology Bill of 1965, which was eventually agreed by both Houses.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair.]

Sir J. Eden

My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) gave notice during the debate on Second Reading that he would seek to move an Amendment of this kind. I would say at the outset, before dealing with the technical details, that it would be difficult to accept the wording of the Amendment as it now stands. None the less, I am sure my hon. Friend would most wish me to speak to the spirit of his observations rather than to the detailed wording.

Subsection (6) enables the Authority to retain in its pension schemes the staff working on astrophysics who were transferred from the Authority's Culham Laboratory to the Science Research Council on 1st April, 1969. This transfer was undertaken voluntarily on the part of the people involved, and as one of the terms of their transfer they were given an undertaking that they could remain in the Authority's pension scheme. It is now suggested that by analogy with the provision in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Science and Technology Act, 1965, any staff recruited to work for the Science Research Council at Culham after 1st April, 1969, should be entitled to join the Authority's pension scheme.

I believe that the reason why the previous Government accepted the Amendment to which my hon. Friend referred to the Science and Technology Bill in 1965 was that it was thought there was some force in the argument that the Rutherford Laboratory, a large laboratory adjacent to Harwell, would be seriously handicapped in recruiting technicians if it were not able to offer the Authority's pension scheme to new recruits as well as retaining it for its then existing staff. The Authority's pension scheme is contributory, and there are certain advantages in that gross salaries are also higher in certain respects than in others.

The same difficulty about recruitment is not envisaged at Culham. This is the first assurance I should like to give my hon. Friend. The number of staff employed by the Science Research Council there is about 30. The annual recruitments needs are very small indeed. The Council does not foresee any difficulty in filling future vacancies at Culham. I understand that no difficulty has been encountered in recruiting sufficient staff to the Council's Laboratory at Daresbury which, like Rutherford Laboratory, was transferred from the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science to the S.R.C. Unlike new recruits to Rutherford, those to Daresbury have not been offered the opportunity of joining the Authority's pension scheme.

It is not normal practice for the staff of one employer to be covered for superannuation purposes in the scheme of another employer. This is why the Amendment presents certain difficulties which I am sure are fully recognised by my hon. Friend. The principle is departed from in cases where people are transferred with their work, as in the general provisions of subsection (1) of the Clause and in the specific provision covering staff at Culham in subsection (6). The further exception to this principle in the Science and Technology Act, 1965, was made in recognition of a potential difficulty about recruitment to the Rutherford Laboratory.

The same practical consideration does not apply at Culham, and there are not very strong grounds for departing from the principle. The difficulties which were expected in the case of Rutherford are not expected in this case. Rutherford drew on Harwell for its recruits. In the case of Culham, the recruits are more likely to come from the universities, and the situation is not comparable. The interests of the staff will be cared for in other ways.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) pointed out, I supported him on an earlier Amendment to the Science and Technology Bill on 15th March, 1965, on a similar matter to this one.

The Minister gave his reason for the previous Government's acceptance of the Amendment in another place, but my guess is that the biggest reason for the Government's changing their mind at that time was that they were scared stiff of Lord Bridges. It was Lord Bridges who persuaded Lord Snow to accept the change on behalf of that Government. Unfortunately Lord Bridges will not be with us now, but the Bill has yet to go to another place.

My hon. Friend the Minister is, to some extent, concerning the view of those most likely to be affected, telling the Institution of Professional Civil Servants to go and suck eggs. He has had a very full letter from Mr. Lyons, of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, dated 31st December, of which he was kind enough to send me a copy.

Two questions arise. First, does the Institution represent the feelings of those most likely to be affected better than the Minister? I should have thought so, as a rule. Second, has the Minister taken account of the point which the Institution pays particular attention to, in that what the Government are doing here is, by a piecemeal method, changing a principle?

At present the Government are able to extend the existing proposals under the old Act to the Daresbury Laboratory people at any time. The I.P.C.S. is trying to get the Government to extend it to the recruits to the Daresbury Laboratory. By rather an underhand method we are destroying that priniciple which the Institution is seeking to get implemented. In the light of what the Minister has said—he has obviously given Mr. Lyons' letter careful consideration—we must hope that when the Institution has commented on his observations this morning he will not rule out the possibility, when the Bill is in another place, of the Government trying to meet the wishes of the Institution more than he has been able to meet the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon today.

Mr. Neave

I was disappointed by my hon. Friend's reply. There was a clear principle established here. It is not fair to say that it was because a very small number of staff were involved. We are dealing with an important principle, which concerns my constituents. New recruits to astrophysics at Culham are on a different pension scheme to those there before 1st April, 1969. That is one of my objections to the decision taken by the previous Government before the Amendment came down from another place and was accepted here.

It may well be true that the influence of Lord Bridges had a lot to do with that. I hope that a successor to him will be found. I should like to do my best in the intervening time to persuade my hon. Friend that he is not right about this. We had a situation, in the case of Rutherford and Harwell, where people were doing similar work separated only by a barbed wire fence, and in the case of Culham, which is not far away and which is controlled by the A.E.A., people are being sent to do astrophysics work who, as the new recruits to the S.R.C., will be under the Civil Service pension scheme and not the A.E.A. pension scheme. They are divided from the others by the arbitrary date which appears in the Bill. That is entirely wrong.

Sir J. Eden

I am sorry that I was unable to satisfy my hon. Friends in my earlier remarks, and I will give close further consideration to what they have just said.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge Bourke), who talked about a principle, it is as well to recognise that the principle involved is that when the Government agree to especially favourable treatment for staff transferred from one part of the public sector to another, or outside the public sector, the treatment should be confined to the staff affected by that transfer. The 1965 Amendment did not itself establish a principle. It was a breach of the principle to suit the particular circum stances at that time.

I have carefully studied the relevance of the circumstances now to what took place then at Rutherford to see whether they justify a similar breach in that principle, and I do not think that they do. If there are any further points which my hon. Friends or the I.P.C.S. would like to put to me, I shall see that they are considered during the later stages of the Bill in another place.

Amendment negatived.

12.45 p.m.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Benn

On the question of superannuation, the anxieties of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants could be totally set on one side if the Minister were prepared to say categorically what I am sure is in his mind, that in the event of disagreement about pension schemes he would be prepared to appoint an arbitrator. In effect, the Minister has indicated that he thinks it right that the new companies should have their own pension scheme. It is not mandatory, but his view is that it is right. I share that view, not only because companies as important as these ought to have such schemes, but because of the importance attached to them by the staff and their importance in the success of the companies.

The Minister has also accepted, as I understand it, that if these schemes are introduced by the new companies he will satisfy himself that they are good schemes. If the Minister wishes to satisfy himself that a scheme is a good one, he will take advice, and since the object of satisfying himself that they are good schemes would be to satisfy the staff, he would obviously want to get somebody to advise him who is acceptable to the staff. That is so near to having an arbitrator that I should have thought that he might have gone as far as the union wants; namely that he should accept publicly some responsibility for ensuring that the schemes are satisfactory and that the man who advises him is himself acceptable to the staff. The Minister has seen the staff recently on this matter. As I understand it, this is the only remaining point at issue. It is such a small point that I hope the Minister will be ready on this occasion to go as far as the union wants and give the House that assurance.

That is the only point I wanted to raise about the pension scheme, and I think I have shown the importance of it.

Mr. Neave

The Minister said that he would reply to my question about arbitration. The companies may introduce their separate superannuation schemes. I should like to know whether he considers that it should be mandatory on them to do so. But if one of those schemes seems less satisfactory to the staff than the existing one, what is the position about arbitration?

I gather that the Minister suggested to the staff side that he had no objection to appointing an independent adviser here, but the question of superannuation arrangements seems a little complicated. Who is to act as arbitrator in the event of dissatisfaction about a new scheme before it has been introduced? I raised this point, possibly at the wrong moment, and my hon. Friend said that he would reply to it.

Sir J. Eden

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bristol. South-East (Mr. Benn) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for giving me the opportunity to refer to these matters and to enlarge on certain under takings or assurances which I have already sought to give to the staff on this point.

The Bill does not provide that the companies must set up their own scheme. It may well be that my enthusiastic sup port for the belief that it will be desirable for them to establish a scheme led me on Second Reading to give too much emphasis to this matter. The option is left open to the companies. It is unlikely that during the earlier part of their existence they will wish to become engaged actively in the preparation of their own schemes. They will probably have many other matters of a more pressing nature to which they will necessarily have to attend. It is right that the Bill should provide for the companies to have their own schemes if they wish. It would be wrong to deny them that freedom.

The question of the rôle of the Secretary of State under subsection (4) has been raised. There are two points. First, if and when the companies decide to set up their own schemes, they will be established only after negotiations between the companies and their staff representatives. That is absolutely right and proper. It is hoped that the employees will transfer voluntarily and willingly from the Authority's scheme to a company scheme. In practice, by the time the Secretary of State makes an order under subsection (4) directing that the Authority's pension scheme shall no longer apply to any employee of one of the companies, all the employees of the company may already have voluntarily transferred to the company scheme. This is what we hope will happen.

The second point has been highlighted by the observations made today. Before an order is made under subsection (4) the Government will certainly consult the staff and the trade union representatives of the company, so that the Secretary of State will be aware of their views on whether the company scheme, taken as a whole, is any less favourable for the people involved than the Authority's scheme. If there is difficulty in reaching a conclusion on this matter, the Secretary of State will be willing to consider seeking independent, authoritative and expert advice.

The staff side asked me particularly—and it has been repeated today—whether the Government would take account of any strong representations which the staff side might wish to make about the source of that independent advice. The Secretary of State, in the sort of circumstances I envisage, will be bound to take account of any such representations, although the final decision about to whom to turn for advice must rest with him.

That is as far as I can go to meet the point. First, there will be provision in the event of the staff experiencing difficulty in accepting that the terms and conditions of the proposed scheme meet the terms and conditions of the scheme of which they are then members; and, secondly, if the Secretary of State, to whom the staff side would be bound to turn, feels that it is right and necessary to call for independent advice, which in order to determine the merits of the scheme, he would wish to do, he will bear fully in mind any representations about the source of that advice which the staff side might wish to put to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 21 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to