HC Deb 17 April 1973 vol 855 cc445-54

1.13 a.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee)

I beg to move, That the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th April, be approved. This is a very human order. It stems from the extensive reorganisation in progress in local government in Northern Ireland. The aims of the reorganisation were stressed on 5th April by my right hon. Friend when he announced his decision about the date of local government elections. I shall not go into that, particularly at this late hour, but it is obvious that any major reorganisation of this kind has considerable effects upon those who serve the various local councils as full-time officers and particularly those who are older and the greater part of whose service is now behind them.

We are familiar with this situation in Great Britain. Specific provisions in the Local Government Act 1972 enable certain officers—who, in practice, I understand will be chief officers and deputy chief officers—to retire prematurely if over the age of 50.

In essence, this order applies to Northern Ireland the same provisions as now apply in Great Britain, and for the same good reasons, namely, that we would wish to be as considerate as possible to this group of local government officers who, through no fault of their own, are vitally affected by the reorganisation of the structures in which they have served for so many years.

We are all familiar with the situation in which local government officers holding senior positions understandably attach considerable importance to the status and title of their office. Such men are not always concerned solely with questions of salary. Now, as part of the reorganisation process, a particular job may disappear or alter in title or in status as well as in salary. In those circumstances the officer may prefer, entirely of his own accord, to retire and take his pension rather than be declared redundant, or be forced to accept a post of lesser status and salary.

In former times we sought to get round this difficulty in Great Britain by the device of creating associate chief officer posts. The House will recall that this was done in the reorganisation which led to the creation of the Greater London Council, but I think it is generally agreed that the brain child of the Royal Commission on Local Government—for it was that body which thought up this novel idea—is a much better one. It enables payments to be made to certain officers who opt for early retirement on pension terms, and the order is sufficiently widely drawn to apply to not only local government officers who are affected by the forthcoming changes but those who have already transferred to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, so long as they exercise their option before they are served with a statement of their new terms and conditions by their new employer.

The order contains provisions for some measure of control over this voluntary retirement, in that existing local authorities may object to a notice of election within one month of its being served. The House will notice that this merely delays until what I think, in practice, will be 1st October, the ability of the officer to retire prematurely on pension terms. I say this because the existing local authorities can delay retirement; they cannot remove from an officer his rights under this order.

The essence of the scheme in the order is that an officer can elect to retire early without being penalised by the loss of compensation which would otherwise go to him in such circumstances. Instead of receiving compensation as such he would be treated for pension purposes as if he had continued to serve until his normal retiring age.

Many of the details of the scheme remain to be completed by regulations to be made by the Secretary of State under the order, but it may be helpful if I indicate now that I do not expect this scheme to extend beyond the ranks of chief officer and deputy chief officer. Not only are these officers, by definition, older, but a widespread application of the provisions right down the line could lead to a loss of staff which, in turn, could be very damaging to the administration of local government. I can also add that I expect the detailed conditions for premature retirement, as spelt out in regulations, in the major part to be the same as those proposed in Great Britain.

It is a truism to say, in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that we depend greatly upon those who serve in local government for the efficacy of administration over a wide field and to none are we more indebted than those who serve at senior levels and will probably have devoted the whole of their working lives to the public service. Happily, many of them will continue to serve out their full time in the revised structures, but even if only a few do not want to do so and are of the group described in this order, I have no doubt that it would be the wish of the House that they should be treated with consideration and generosity. It is for these reasons that I commend the order to the House.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton)

This is clearly a compassionate provision, of which we can only approve. I shall delay the House for no more than a few moments—long enough to ask two questions.

We frequently pay warm tributes to the Northern Ireland police, who have an unenviable task, and I am concerned that our tributes should take some tangible form. As I see the situation, the police are not included in the order. Will the Minister confirm that that is because no question of their early retirement is likely to arise from the reorganisation?

My second question is really a request for an undertaking. We have before the House another curious constitutional animal, arising from the Northern Ireland situation. It is a well-known maxim of administrative law that a delegate cannot himself delegate. Yet we have before us a proposal that the Minister shall make regulations under this order which itself is subordinate legislation made under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. The Secretary of State is availing himself of powers of subordinate legislation to give himself power to make further subordinate legislation. I wonder where that process could end. One sees the reasons for it in this situation, but can we be given an undertaking that the Government will keep the matter under tight rein? It is a curious animal, which could gallop away with us all if we do not watch it carefully.

I promised not to delay the House for more than a few moments, and I do not propose to do so.

1.23 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

The order deals with a matter of the utmost importance. It is a human matter, which affects many people in Northern Ireland. Though the hour is early, and though many of us have businesses to attend to early in the morning in Northern Ireland —my first meeting is at 9.30 in the morning—I feel it my duty, as a Northern Ireland representative, at least to pass some comments on the order and elicit some information from the Minister of State.

I emphasise that no threats or bad language used against hon. Members from Ulster will deter them from attending to the business before the House. On coming into the Chamber I heard some ill-conceived comments of a most unparliamentary nature hurled at Northern Ireland Members because we were trying to do our duty within parliamentary time and procedure. I completely exonerate both Front Benches, but I must protest at what happened. I am entitled to come here as a Member from Northern Ireland to speak on these orders if I desire to do so, within the limits of procedure.

Mr. Peter Archer

I wish to place on record that those comments did not come from Opposition Members.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am happy to confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. When principles are at stake and one is prepared to rise to the challenge, one finds that certain hon. Members feel that that is not the right thing to do. I shall not pursue the point, for I shall find myself out of order, and I do not want to delay matters.

Before the Stormont Parliament was prorogued, the Macrory Report was in existence and there was an attempt to implement its recommendations. That report broke down the whole structure of local government. Rural district councils, urban councils, borough councils and county borough and county councils were all to be destroyed—indeed they are now in process of being dismantled. People who have served the community faithfully will now find themselves unable to obtain positions in the reorganised local authorities. Representations about these employees have been made to me and, I believe, to other hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I am happy that the order contains provision for early retirement from local government by people who have served their day and generation so well.

I take it that there are employees in all the departments who will come within the scope of the order. Will the Minister of State tell us how many will have to retire early from the Housing Trust? There were two building authorities— local government and the trust. Now, responsibility for all public building will rest with the Housing Trust and many employees will have to retire early, thus coming within the scope of the order. How many local government employees will now find that the new district councils cannot take them over? When various boards, such as the hospital boards, the libraries, education boards, and so on, take over the duties of the councils, how many will have to be retired early?

I also ask about the electricity boards concerned in amalgamation, and about the fire services. Hon. Members may not know that the fire authority for Northern Ireland did not include Belfast, which had a separate fire authority under the county borough council. There has been an amalgamation and some people will not be employed by the new bodies. I should like to have statistics on these matters showing how many will benefit by the new measure.

The question of delegated delegation mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tiptree (Mr. Peter Archer) is very important. Now that we have this delegated legislation one remove from the first delegation, we should have an explanation and direction from the Government. Are they to continue this process? One wonders how far it will go and what will be the end. These are very important points and I hope that the Minister of State can help us on them. Two of my constituents who served the local authority for many years now have to retire early. I am glad that compensation for loss of office will be available to them. I welcome the humanity of this measure and the fact that the Minister presented it even so early in the morning. I join the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) in thanking the Minister for his patience and courtesy in answering questions.

When one looks at the Opposition benches one finds it quite evident that certain hon. Members came here tonight only to discuss the contentious second order, whereas, of course, the first and the third deal with ordinary people of Northern Ireland.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

I wish to give a brief welcome to this measure. I concur in the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in thanking the Minister for the sympathetic way in which he has introduced this important measure.

I repeat the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer): why was the police service not covered along with the others? Is it because there will not be any need for an early retirement provision? We in Northern Ireland owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the members of the RUC, and I for one want to be satisfied that they are not detrimentally affected by being omitted from this provision.

Is my hon. Friend the Minister of State in a position to enlarge on the superannuation provisions? If a person elects to retire early, will he receive a fixed pension for the rest of his life? Is there any provision for increasing the pension to take account of the effect of inflation? I see no mention of it in the order and, while I realise that it is not possible under our procedure to amend the order, I feel that there should be some provision to allow any pension to be increased to meet rises in the cost of living, so that retired persons do not suffer because their pensions become totally inadequate over the course of years.

If that is not in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise. But I thought it was a serious matter, because other pensioners in my constituency have complained about the inadequacy of their pensions, due to the effect of inflation. Therefore, in so far as it is in order, I should like my hon. Friend to deal with it. Subject to that qualification, I welcome the order.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

In a few brief remarks I want to dispel the impression that we are dealing with matters which are of little account, and that in doing so the Ulster Members are somehow exploiting the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Order. That is hardly within the terms of the order.

Mr. Molyneaux

As my party's spokesman for local government, and as one who still serves in local government, I must make the point that there are a vast number of matters which in other circumstances I should wish to mention in the context of the order. However, I content myself with raising only two.

The order refers to the Housing Executive. I am prompted to ask whether everything possible has been done to find positions for the housing officers of local authorities to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred. How does their position, as regards placement in other posts, compare with that of the housing officers and staff of the former Northern Ireland Housing Trust?

Then there is the complicated business of the amalgamation of boards. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can see his way to making some reply on that aspect.

Paragraph 1 deals with early retirements—the centrepiece of the order. Is there any significant variation in the number of redundancies in geographical areas of the Province? For example, how does the western half of Northern Ireland compare with the eastern half? Is the number of early redundancies above the general average in certain fields of local government? For example, how do former officers of education departments compare with those of welfare departments? On another level, how do former officers of legal departments compare with those of motor taxation departments?

On other occasions I have mentioned particularly the interests of the legal officers of county councils. I am still not satisfied with the assurances that I have been given. I still do not feel that we are using to the full, or intend to use to the full, these experienced and integrated staffs, who have done much good work in the past.

Finally, what steps have been taken to safeguard the interests of those public-spirited local government officers who have stayed at their posts for the additional six months which resulted from the postponing of the local government elections? The Government and all of us owe those people a great debt. I trust that their careers will not suffer in any way.

1.36 a.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee

I assure the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) that the police are not disadvanteged by the order. It arises out of the reorganisation of local government. That does not directly concern the police as a force, but that is why early retirement is not contemplated. I take the hon. and learned Member's point about subordinate legislation, having myself been watchful of these things in times gone by. He will understand that we are operating under an emergency procedure. It is not possible for every order to be minutely set out in this legislation, but I take the point: it has to be watched.

I cannot give the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) any figures in the class he asked about because, the exact class of person has to be set out in orders made under this measure, but I hope that I have indicated to him broadly the class which will be included. I am given to understand— obviously, I have to operate on the basis of the advice I am given—that the number concerned will be comparatively small throughout Northern Ireland. I am glad that that should be so, because it shows that by far the greater number of these senior men have been happily fitted into the new patterns. That is pleasing to all of us.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East will like to know that cost of living increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 will apply to payments where the officer attains or has attained the age of 55. This age threshold was reduced from 60 last year, representing a great improvement. Of course, taking the whole of the provision, the payments made to such an officer would include both capital and income payments.

I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) details of the placement of the officers he mentioned. If it will assist him to have a word with me afterwards, I will ask the appropriate department to write to him. I am concerned only with their superannuation upon early retirement. But there has been a recent meeting with the county solicitors and others of that status, which I am told they regarded as satisfactory. This happened so recently that my hon. Friend may not have had an opportunity to study it. Naturally, we want to be appropriately careful and considerate to very senior officers of that nature.

I hope that I have answered all the points raised in the debate. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th April, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

Forward to