PROTECTION OF PENSION, ETC., RIGHTS' (Hansard, 30 July 1975)

§ Mr. Ronald Brown
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This again is a small but very important item. It concerns the situation where local government officers are involved in an industrial dispute. Under both the superannuation schemes which they currently operate, they are excluded from reckonable service during the whole of the time they spend on an industrial dispute. If there is a strike and they are not at work, that is taken away from their reckonable service for pension.
I believe that this is wrong and an unwarrantable interference. If they go into an industrial dispute and withdraw their labour, they must bear responsibility for it and lose the pay which would otherwise accrue to them. But it seems quite wrong to make them continue to pay for it in their pensions after they have retired.
My proposal puts no onus upon the employer. All I suggest is that, where officers decide to withdraw their labour as the only possible way to resolve a given situation, afterwards they should be permitted to replace the otherwise lost reckonable time by buying in the specific time. In other words, I propose that they should pay their own contributions plus those of their employer for the 1885 period they were in dispute. This places the onus on the individual. It is his responsibility if he goes into an industrial dispute. Equally, it is his responsibility if he wishes to buy back the reckonable service that he has lost. It does not involve his employer in any additional cost. I am not suggesting that his employer should pay for him. On the contrary, the responsibility is clearly on the individual concerned.
I hope that my hon. Friend will find it possible to accept the clause. It deals with a unique situation which has persisted for too long. It is time, in this excellent piece of legislation, that we put the matter right.

§ Mr. Booth
With the Social Security Pensions Bill nearing the end of its passage through Parliament, the Government appreciate the great importance for employees of occupational pensions provision. The Department of Employment, with its concern for industrial relations, is highly conscious of the fact that when a dispute is terminated it is desirable that employers, workpeople and their representatives should return as quickly as possible to a normal working relationship and that any continuing effects of a dispute such as a permanent adverse effect on pensions should be avoided if at all possible.
But the provision of occupational pen-son cover is in our view essentially a matter for negotiation between employers and employees, and there is no statutory obligation on employers to provide schemes. This must influence our approach to legislation in the area which the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch (Mr. Brown) suggests.
It is difficult in principle to distinguish the strike situation envisaged in the new clause from other types of situation in which occupational pension scheme rules might well not provide for pension rights to accrue, for example, where a woman has to stay away from work to look after a member of the family. It is for the employers and employees who are jointly concerned with their particular schemes to decide whether there should be any facility for purchasing pension rights in such circumstances.
The provision suggested by my hon. Friend is, on first reading, straightforward. 1886 When it is considered in more depth, however, it can be seen that there is a wide variety of pension schemes and that there are difficulties in deciding how to finance a gap in contributions. Even in contributory schemes it is often impossible to say what an employee would have to pay, since the employer's obligation generally consists not only of a fixed contribution as mentioned in the rules but often of a liability to pay additional resources from time to time whenever necessary to maintain the pension fund in a certain condition. In non-contributory schemes it might prove impossible to say what amount an employee should pay. Therefore, it would be impracticable to impose on the generality of schemes an arrangement expressed in such unqualified terms as appear in the new clause. If there were particular types of scheme in particular types of employment where the feasibility of such arrangements was not open to question, no doubt the point could be taken up at the negotiating table.
We have given some thought to the issue of how pension rights are determined and the nature of schemes in the recognition provisions of the Bill. I made it clear on Second Reading that hon. Members should appreciate that when we talked of enforcing rights of recognition we were talking not only about establishing a right to negotiate on wages and holidays but about a mechanism or a vehicle whereby independent trade unions could extend from that sort of negotiating position to one in which they could cover a matter such as pensions.
In the light of the considerable reappraisal which must be made of industrial pension schemes and in the light of the legislation that has been passed, it will be surprising if a number of trade unions do not use the provisions of the Bill if they are not conceded rights to negotiate on pension matters. I hope that, by another means within the Bill, we have established a mechanism for resolving the problem raised by the new clause by enabling people to negotiate about pension schemes initially.
I must indicate to my hon. Friend that I should prefer him to withdraw his new clause. If he cannot do so, I must ask the House to resist it because in my view the proposition contained in the new 1887 clause would not be universally applicable and would create serious difficulties in establishing certain industrial pension schemes. I am certain that that would be neither my hon. Friend's wish nor the wish of the House. I am certain that it is the wish of my hon. Friend that the right to negotiate on these matters should be achieved. I hope he will appreciate that the recognition provisions of the Bill create such a right and that this might well be the way in which the matter can be properly determined.

§ Mr. Ronald Brown
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He was described a moment ago by the Secretary of State as having a very powerful persuasive voice in Committee. He is exercising that powerful persuasion on me. I have put forward three new clauses and I have not won one. Therefore, my hon. Friend is doing very well. I understand what he has said and I am grateful for his courtesy. I accept his advice, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.