HL Deb 13 July 1937 vol 106 cc348-56

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, this is a Bill to consolidate the law affecting the superannuation of local government employees and also to amend it in certain particulars. It will constitute, if accepted by Parliament, a complete code of the law relating to this subject. A White Paper which is published with this Bill sets out, I think very clearly, what the intentions of the Government are, but perhaps I might refer to one or two of the more important effects of the Bill. If this Bill is passed, all whole-time officers of local authorities will be compulsorily included in a superannuation scheme. The other main provisions deal with the facilitation of voluntary superannuation schemes with regard to the servants of these authorities. The Bill is really the outcome of a series of deliberations between the interested parties which have lasted over a considerable number of years. There was a Committee which reported in 1927 but progress did not emerge very rapidly from that Committee's Report because of the financial crisis and other reasons. Agreement has been now reached between associations representing the local authorities and the National Association of Local Government Officers, and therefore I can submit the Bill as an agreed measure.

Your Lordships may perhaps remember that the original Superannuation Act was passed in 1922. That Act gave the authorities power to make discretionary superannuation schemes and that Act has been widely utilised. At present 944 out of 1,556 authorities have adopted the Act. There are, however, still 587 authorities without these superannuation arrangements. The reason why it is considered desirable to require uniformity of practice throughout the whole local government machine is largely to be found in the increasing responsibilities and increasing importance of the local government service. I am sure that everyone will agree that it is highly important to secure the best type of applicant for these services, and to secure also that, once having been appointed, the local government official may regard himself as entering a career with various opportunities of promotion and so forth. It is therefore necessary to secure ease of transfer from one local authority to another when these vacancies may be filled as they occur, and this can only be done if approximately the same conditions prevail throughout the service. Therefore this Bill makes provision that all whole-time administrative professional and clerical officers should be included.

The Government considered at some length the question of how far to carry this compulsory principle and whether it should be applied to the servants as well as to the officers of authorities, but they finally decided that it should not be applied to the servants, and in this they are following the recommendation of the minority rather than of the majority of the Selby-Bigge Committee. The real reason for this decision was that the manual labourers, road staff and so forth, do not enter the local government service as a career in the same way as the officers, and they do not have the same need for opportunities for transfer or mobility. I quite agree, of course, that provisions should be made for the old age requirements of these servants just in the same way as it is desirable in the case of the officials, but some provision is made by reason of the contributory pensions schemes which apply universally to all manual workers employed on a definite contract of service.

I would also point out that if it is considered desirable by the local authorities to make additional provision for their employees by means of a superannuation scheme they are at perfect liberty to do so—in fact, the process by which these discretionary schemes can be made is facilitated by this Bill, and certain additional benefits are permitted. For instance, it is laid down that henceforth all superannuable employees will be entitled to reckon past local government service for pension purposes; all periods of service are to be aggregated; periods of unemployment or absence on sick leave with reduction or suspension of pay during the last five years of service are to be ignored in calculating pension; the employee whose remuneration is reduced owing to his inability to perform his usual duties will be allowed to continue his contributions on the former scale and thus preserve his pension rights in full; a married employee will be able (in return for surrender of part pension) to provide an annuity for a surviving wife or husband.

I think I ought to say a word about one class of employee who are in a rather particular position—namely, nurses, health visitors and midwives. Their work is generally of a somewhat strenuous character and they often find it difficult to carry on with full efficiency after the age of sixty. The Bill accordingly provides that this class shall retire at sixty, and it also allows them to take their pensions at the age of fifty-five after thirty years' service has been completed, which compares with the forty years minimum in other services. We recognise that if the compulsory retiring age is fixed at sixty some of these nurses and health visitors will be at a disadvantage in that they may not be able to complete forty years' service and so earn the full pension, and the Bill allows the local authority to award a compensatory allowance to such employees.

There are a number of other provisions included in the Bill chiefly to remedy minor hardships which have arisen since the passing of the 1922 Act. I might draw particular attention to the position of those employees who joined the forces for the period of the last War. Some doubts have arisen as to the exact position of those employees, and as to whether they are entitled to count their War service in these superannuation calculations. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 12 (3) it is laid down that such service can be taken into account, and we further contemplate some further clarification of the position in regard to the War service. In the Bill it is laid down that the day of the Armistice is to be taken as the final date up to which War service can be calculated, but we propose to introduce an Amendment to extend that in some directions. Special provision is also being made in regard to employees engaged in a temporary capacity so that their rights shall be safeguarded if they subsequently become further employed. There is also provision made for appeal to the Minister in cases of disputes as to the rights of employees, and the Minister may and in certain cases shall, state a case to the High Court on any case which may arise.

This is a Bill of a very technical character. The technicalities of it appeal, not unnaturally perhaps, a little more to those who are going to be affected by it than to the general public. Nevertheless, it is a Bill of great importance, because nobody who has anything to do with local government can fail to appreciate the extent to which we rely on the efficiency of that service. We all know that a continual stream of Bills is passed every Session by Parliament. We also know that the mere passing of them is only half the battle. The application of them is nearly always a matter involving a great deal of hard work and much complicated work, and I think that few of us would grudge to these officials, on whom so much depends, such improvement as can be reasonably effected in their conditions of service. As I have already explained, this is largely a Consolidation Bill. Apart from some Amendments in Committee, the principle of which was accepted without any Division in another place, no exception was taken to the principle of the Bill, and in view of the fact that it has been agreed between the parties interested, I hope your Lordships will be content with this explanation and will give it a Second Reading.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

My Lords, while I entirely agree with the noble Viscount with regard to this Bill, I should perhaps say that we on these Benches approve of the Bill—or should I say that I approve of the Bill? But it does not go quite far enough for, as the noble Viscount said, it only embraces the conditions of actual officers of councils and not those of other employees. The noble Viscount was good enough to indicate that certain Amendments might be put in in Committee and might even be accepted. I think he said that he was going to put down an Amendment which would embrace employees who did War service. I am hoping therefore that the two Amendments that I have in mind, which I have indicated to the noble Viscount, and which I believe were discussed in another place, may receive that favourable consideration which only two or three days ago the Government gave to suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in regard to another Bill.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I quite agree that this is a very good Bill. It has been welcomed by the National Association of Local Government Officers right through the country, because it now compels every authority to have a superannuation scheme. As the noble Viscount pointed out, no fewer than 587 local authorities have no scheme at all, and under this Bill a proper career will be provided for those very industrious people the local government officers of this country, because if they go to another authority which has no pensionable rights that authority does not at present give them the benefit of their transfer. I can tell the noble Viscount that this Bill is very much welcomed by this very powerful association. The controversy when the Bill was first introduced was about temporary officers, because it was found that under a great many authorities men were employed in important posts as temporary officers and were therefore ineligible for superannuation rights. That is now going to cease, and that is all to the good. On the other hand there was a good deal of dissatisfaction when the Bill was first introduced because it did not allow any temporary officers to be appointed. It can be quite understood that if all persons, whatever the service, were to be entitled to pensions it would be a great difficulty because an authority might need a man's services only for a year or two years. That has been got over by fixing the period at two years, and that again is all to the good.

I might say that in London the London County Council, the City of Westminster, and a good many other borough councils in London have long had these superannuation schemes. Either they took advantage of the 1922 Act, or they have introduced schemes of their own which have received the assent of Parliament. Now every authority will be compelled to make proper provision for its own employees. I should like to add that the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, which represents all the borough councils of London irrespective of Party, have asked me to say how greatly they appreciate the introduction of this Bill. As regards the employees, I think the noble Viscount is quite right in saying that it is of great benefit that there are contributory schemes, and I think he will find on examination that most of the more progressive and enlightened authorities have got schemes of that kind. It is not for me to judge, because I have not the facts before me; it is for the Government to judge whether it is wise or unwise to make these schemes compulsory. It has taken a long time in the case of the officers to produce a compulsory scheme, and it is very difficult, without further information, to decide whether it is right or not. But having been asked to do so, I feel it my duty to express the pleasure of the local authorities, and also of the officers of the local authorities, that this Bill has been brought in by the Government, and the hope that it will now pass into law.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I do not rise in any spirit of hostility to the Bill. On the contrary my feeling is rather one of surprise that we have not seen this Bill many years ago. Such as it is, I am happy to see it, and hope it will be passed into law and be successful when it is in operation. I rise only to call attention to a sidelight which arises under this Bill, but it is an important sidelight, as it affects hospital work in this country. I am thinking more of the pensions which nurses will draw under this Bill as compared with what now happens in the voluntary hospitals. As your Lordships are aware, in the voluntary hospitals there is what is known as the federated superannuation scheme. That has been running for some years, very hopefully. It has not been running long enough to allow a definite opinion to be formed. I do not think any great disadvantages have so far shown themselves, and we have every hope that, as years go on, it will prove a very useful plan. Under this Bill, nurses who are employed in the municipal hospitals will, in their turn, quite rightly qualify for a pension, but under a totally different scheme and on a totally different scale. I do not object to the difference of scale, but the fact that there is a new scheme is unfortunate, because it makes any interchangeability between the two bodies practically impossible.

It is true that if a nurse transferred from the voluntary hospital system now to the municipal system, she would take with her accrued rights under the federated scheme, but if a nurse transferred in turn from the municipal side to the voluntary hospital side, she would do so under very much less advantageous terms. Going from the voluntary side to the municipal side, the nurse would take with her both her own contributions and her employers' contributions, but going from the municipal side to the voluntary hospital side she would take only her personal contributions; she would take nothing on behalf of her employers. That is going to be very unfortunate in practice, because it will mean that interchangeability between the services will be hampered. The two services are approximating to each other every day, and it is very desirable, from a national point of view, that they should approximate. It will be very unfortunate if difficulties are put in the way by the fact that the nursing system of the country will be divided into two absolutely different classes and unable to benefit each other as they should. The difficulty will arise at once in one small way because, as your Lordships are aware, the municipal hospitals now very largely recruit their nurses from the training schools attached to the voluntary hospitals. In the voluntary hospitals they begin to qualify for pension rights the minute they join, and they would have a small modicum to take with them if they transferred to the municipal side. It may be that that will work smoothly, but, in my opinion, it will have an indirect effect, because the municipal hospitals will not get the best of these nurses—in fact, they will only get those who do not see a good career on the voluntary side.

It is a small point. I know it has been brought to the notice of the Government, and I understand that at present nothing can be done. The Government, I fancy, are bound by the decision of those mysterious people known as their actuaries. In this matter Governments are at a great disadvantage compared with ordinary laymen who deal with actuaries. A layman who is told by an actuary that a certain thing cannot be done can deal with the matter in a few minutes, or get another actuary. I have done so with great benefit on two or three occasions in times past. I have never allowed myself to be bullied by a mere mathematician! Governments are not so fortunate. They have got their actuaries, and they have to obey them. They cannot depart from the advice they give. It is a pity there is not some interchangeability arranged for on this point. I believe it would not be difficult, with good will on each side. I suppose it is too late to hope that this Bill will be amended in the direction I have adumbrated, but I draw comfort from the fact that, good as the Bill is, it is bristling with difficulties which will probably have to be dealt with as the Bill works out, and I do not think it will be long before we have an Amending Bill. When that time comes, I hope the Government will show themselves to be in a more sympathetic attitude than they have adopted up to the present.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I must thank noble Lords for the reception they have given to this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, adumbrated an Amendment which I think was moved in another place. Although there was a full discussion of the point there, we shall be very happy to have it again here. I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for his authoritative support of the Bill. With regard to my noble friend Lord Donoughmore, I agree that it is never an easy matter to satisfy everybody, particularly on a highly complicated and technical question such as this. I would remind the noble Earl that this Committee reported in 1927, and deliberations have been proceeding, one way and another, almost ever since. I am fully aware of the improbability of satisfying all the various classes of people who might be included in the scheme, but I will, of course, lay what he has said before my right honourable friend, without holding out very much hope that anything will be done in this Bill. My noble friend seemed to understand that himself. I have nothing further to add, but would merely once again commend the Bill to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.