Oversea Superannuation Bill (Hansard, 4 March 1991)

§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)
I start by declaring a pecuniary interest in that I am a beneficiary of the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 by virtue of having served in colonial Nigeria. The Bill covers comparatively narrow ground, but I shall make one or two points that are of importance to the people concerned and to others who may be indirectly concerned, or who may be concerned in the future.
I refer first to Hong Kong pensioners. As the House knows, the position there is completely different from that in the rest of the former colonial empire. On transition to independence, arrangements for the pensions of the expatriate staff of the British colonial service or the British overseas civil service were made, and pensions were guaranteed and paid by Britain in the shape of the Overseas Pensions Act, which provides for enhancement and index linking. That is wholly beneficial and, to the extent that the Bill tidies up little problems of that kind for members of the overseas civil service, one is grateful.
However, Hong Kong will not become independent. It is not envisaged that the same arrangements will apply to those who have retired or who will retire from colonial service there as apply to people who have served in countries that have become independent and whose pensions are fully protected. For one thing, such people get credit for war service included with their final pension. Half of their war service is added on for pension purposes. That is a generous and proper addition. However, Hong Kong does not, and will not, do that. The Hong Kong Government are dragging their feet under cover of the excuse that it has a problem with the People's Republic. Although this is a colonial territory and should obey the orders of the British Government, the British Government are not willing to enforce their authority and tell these unelected administrators, most of whom are British, where their duty lies. Their duty is to ensure that pensioners who served in the colonial service in Hong Kong are treated in the same way as pensioners who have retired from service in other parts of the colonial empire.
Secondly, the arrangements for Hong Kong pensioners are special in that the value of the pension awarded at the end of service, whether or not the person has been in service elsewhere, is calculated in terms of the Hong Kong dollar, which is linked to the American dollar. Such pensions have been subject to fluctuation. I am talking about those drawing their pensions now, who may or may not be covered by the Bill, but whose pensions may have declined in value by 30 per cent. Such a deterioration in the value of the pension of someone who has given service to the Crown with honour, honesty and responsibility and now is living in Britain is wrong. These people should be treated in the same way as all other pensioners who have served in the colonial service.
The remedy is for the British Government to agree, under the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act, to bring the Hong Kong system into line with that for other services, including those covered by the Bill. We must avoid that discrepancy which is emerging in the treatment of pensioners. From whatever part of the colonial service 80 these people have retired, the amount payable should be calculated in sterling from the date of retirement and not from some future date. I know that that means the British Government having to take over in the way proposed in the Bill so as to ensure equality of treatment, but it must be done. We cannot leave an injustice like this when Hong Kong ceases to be part of the colonial empire.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
Order. It is not clear from the Bill, but I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could confirm that the provisions of the Bill apply to Hong Kong pensioners.

§ Mr. Stanbrook
That is part of the point that has to be made. A number of people covered by the Bill come under the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act and the question is whether they will get the same treatment as everyone else. The Minister may say that they will, and I shall be happy about that.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman about this because on Third Reading we must discuss what is in the Bill, not how we think the Bill should be extended.

§ Mr. Stanbrook
I am not talking about extending the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am asking questions. Who come under the Overseas Pensions Act 1973? From what territories do they come? Are they restricted to those who come from one territory, or are they part of the general movement of tidying up pensions legislation, which applies to all former colonial service officers? There is not much in it, it may be a quibble, but it is important that such a grievance should be ventilated if it can be done within the confines of the Bill. I think that it can because of the overriding benefit that Parliament gives to the colonial service generally by bringing all these cases within the Overseas Pensions Act.
We should ensure that included in this benefit are all those who come from different circumstances—for example, those who served in Hong Kong, which is not a traditional colony that is about to get independence. Another example is Zimbabwe, which, although it received independance, had a civil service that was locally recruited rather than being recruited by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Therefore, those who served in it do not have the same pension rights as others in the colonial service. Those people stayed at their posts and many served the British empire in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
These are difficult problems, but they have to be addressed and I believe that I was right to raise them in this debate.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
I had not intended to say anything, but, having heard the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I feel that I must say a few words. I do not intend to go down the road that he opened up, because, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot see its direct relevance to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that he was a beneficiary of the Bill, but the Opposition maintain their support for the Bill, shown on Second Reading and in Committee.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on the eloquent and efficient way in which he dealt with the Bill in Committee. I congratulate the Minister for Overseas Development, 81 who unfortunately is not with us today, on the excellent way in which she dealt with the Bill in Committee. Perhaps I may be permitted the rare privilege of congratulating the Minister with us today on the eloquent way in which he moved the Third Reading.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)
In view of the normal exchanges between the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and myself, I am grateful for his gracious compliment, which was so different from our last exchange.
With regard to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), perhaps it would be helpful if I stated the purpose of the Bill concisely. It seeks to bring the overseas superannuation scheme within the scope of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973, thereby giving the Overseas Development Administration the authority to defund the scheme—if I may use the jargon—which means to convert the scheme into a pay-as-you-go system.
The overseas superannuation scheme was an extra statutory pension fund that was set up in 1951 by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to provide superannuation cover for research and scientific staff who were working overseas. It was closed to new members in 1961, and there are no active contributors. It was always a small fund. It now pays 134 officers' pensions and makes 17 dependants' awards. One of its essential problems is its administrative cost. It consumes abut £25,000 per year.
There has been wide consultation on the desirability of this Bill. There was discussion with the advisory board, on which beneficiaries are represented. The beneficiaries were written to and asked whether they wished to petition against the Bill, but no petition has been lodged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington referred specifically to Hong Kong. No decisions have yet been taken on the arrangements that will be made for overseas civil service officers following the transfer of sovereignty. My hon. Friend also referred to Zimbabwe. I am afraid that there is no prospect of the Government taking over responsibility for the payment of pensions that are now the responsibility of the Government of Zimbabwe.