HL Deb 30 March 1950 vol 166 cc665-74

4.12 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 22nd instant, be agreed to. Normally, the Motion would be promoted in a formal fashion and would be put to your Lordships' House without comment, hut, as perhaps your Lordships will have seen, a number of noble Lords ace anxious to say a few words about the Regulations, and therefore it is desirable that at the outset I should briefly explain what they are.

It will be noticed that the Regulations concern England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. Almost entirely, the Regulations are the same, but there is one provision which applies to Scotland and not to England. Your Lordships may be interested to know what it is. Medical practitioners who practise in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have had made to them on retirement certain additional payments because of the character of their work and the heaviness of the duties involved. If, however, before retirement these medical practitioners removed from the area in which they had been practising, and where they had gathered to themselves a credit for the future, they were liable, under the Regulations approved in 1948, to lose those extra payments.

It has been found that what seems at first sight to be a proper financial arrangement is not altogether beneficial either in the case of the Highlands or the Islands, and it is desirable, in the view of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that men who are approaching their retiring years should, from time to time, be urged to move from the area in which their practice has been and take lighter duties elsewhere. There have been difficulties about that in the past because on moving they would lose the extra payments to which I have just drawn your Lordships' attention. The credit of that medical practitioner will, under these Regulations, go with him into the new area, so that he does not lose. This may facilitate changes of practice and the employment of younger medical men for these difficult and widespread regions.

I do not think there is any other point in the Regulations which show a difference between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. The draft Regulations follow the Regulations which were adopted little more than two years ago. They have been brought forward by the Secretary of State in order to simplify and ease administration, and to reduce man-power, if that be possible. Sc far as these Regulations take that character of simplification and co-ordination, there is no point to which I need draw attention; I am sure your Lordships will consider that to be a desirable object to attain. The exception concerns any persons who, before the National Health Scheme came into operation, were in the employment of other authorities and were entitled under those authorities to superannuation benefit on retirement. When the National Health Service was brought into operation these persons were given an alternative: they were given three months in which they could opt into the national superannuation scheme or if taken therein could opt out. A substantial number of those formerly employed came into the national scheme, but a fairly large number remained outside. In introducing these draft Regulations to the Whitley Council, the Minister did not himself make any proposal in the matter. The suggestion that there should be a fresh period of option came from the staff side. At first the Minister was rather reluctant to accept the suggestion because it meant considerable administrative change, but on further consideration he ultimately agreed, and now in the Regulations before the House there is a provision which will enable persons who have not yet come into the national superannuation scheme to opt into it within a short period of time. In accepting the proposal that came from the staff side, the Minister believes that, although at first there will be some slight administrative difficulty, in the long rain any increased membership will lead to simplification and the strengthening of the national superannuation scheme.

Since the Regulations were laid before your Lordships' House—indeed, just prior to the meeting of the Special Orders Committee last week—noble Lords who are members of the Special Orders Committee have received correspondence drawing attention to the proposal I have mentioned and asking that the reverse option should be given also—namely, that persons in the national superannuation scheme should be given the option of returning to the original scheme in which they were interested. The Minister has considered this matter and has reached the conclusion that he could not accept that proposal. I am authorised to say that even if the proposal had been made by the staff side through the Whitley Council, he would have been bound to refuse it, because if any large number of persons left the State scheme the effect would be serious. It would weaken the scheme financially, and fresh decisions would have to be taken to make up for the void that would be created. Perhaps I ought to add that the desire for the reverse option has not come from the Whitley Council, which is the body with which the Minister deals in matters of this kind; nor does it come from any of the functional boards working in connection with the Whitley Council. It has come from the Royal College of Nursing; and I believe that some noble Lords have received a letter from the Royal College of Midwives.

I hope your Lordships will believe that at this late stage it will be rather difficult, and even dangerous, to hold up these Regulations. It is desirable that the new Regulations should come into force at the same time as the new financial year commences. After what I have said, my right honourable friend will be very glad to have the support of your Lordships in giving approval to these Regulations, leaving other matters to be dealt with on some future occasion.

Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 22nd instant, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)

4.20 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, there is little doubt that these Regulations are of great importance to thousands of nurses and other officers in the National Health Service. I would draw your Lordships' attention particularly to draft Regulation 30 (8). This Regulation raises, among other things, the question of such officers as nurses, midwives and so on, exercising an option to enter the Health Service pension scheme. It is true that substantial improvements have been made in the Health Service superannuation scheme, but I think it can be said that they will have little beneficial effect for women. The fact is that the majority of women leave the Service for various reasons, such as marriage, and so on, and therefore would in any case forfeit their pension rights. I feel it is true to say that many of the nurses and midwives have only now had time to appreciate the possible advantages which they would have reaped had they stayed in the old federated scheme of pensions, which includes provision for retirement at the age of fifty instead of fifty-five.

I suggest, also, that there was inadequate prior consultation with all the representative bodies of the interests concerned; in fact, I believe only a short report was made to the staff side of the Whitley Council, and the implications of the Health Service Scheme were not stressed at all. Again, the Association of Occupational Therapists apparently at no time had before them a copy of the print of the revised draft Regulations, nor were many of the amendments of the 1950 draft Regulations brought to their attention, either directly or through the Whitley Council.

Our main objection to draft Regulation 30 (8) is that it does not provide any fresh option to transfer back to the federated scheme, whereas those officers who have stayed out of the Regulations are now to be given another chance. I see no reason at all why it should be a one-way stream. By these Regulations His Majesty's Government are now allowing a period of six months in which the option to enter the Health Service pension scheme may be exercised. I should like to put it to the noble Lord who moved the Motion that this six-months' period is an indication that the previous three-months' period was all too short a time; in fact, the noble Lord said to-day that there are quite a large number of people who have been left outside. I would ask the noble Lord if he would agree to withdraw these Regulations for further consideration, so that an opportunity may be given for those health officers who may wish to do so to transfer back to the old federated scheme.

4.23 p.m.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I feel sure your Lordships will extend to me that kindness and indulgence which is always extended when a member first ventures to address your Lordships' House. I can assure your Lordships that. I should not have ventured to rise so early in my membership of this House were I not convinced of the importance of these Regulations to the overwhelming majority of the staff to whom they apply. As has already been explained, these Regulations arise out of the National Health Service Act, 1946. Regulations were issued in 1947, and those who were in pensionable positions had three months in which to decide whether or not they would opt out of the new scheme. I think it is true that a considerable number exercised that right. The Regulations were amended again in 1948, and in December last year the Minister further considered them in the light of experience, and submitted to the General Whitley Council, on which all sections of the staff are represented, proposals to amend and improve them. The staff side of the Whitley Council were so concerned at the improvements in the Regulations that they asked the Minister to give to those who had, so to speak, contracted out of the new Regulations, an option to reconsider their position. I would emphasise that the demand came from the staff side, and I understand it will apply to approximately 46,000 men and women.

In view of administrative difficulties, the Minister agreed to the proposal reluctantly. Now, if I may say so with due respect, at the very last moment a spanner is thrown into the works and a claim is advanced that people who did not exercise their option should now have the right to opt out of the scheme. I am reminded of the story—and I venture to recount it to your Lordships—of a well-known alderman-chairman of a health committee in a Lancashire town. There was a proposal before the health committee that the city cemetery should be provided with a wall. The voting was equal, and the chairman had to give a casting vote. He deliberated for a considerable time, and then delivered himself of this judgment. He said: "I do not think we will build a wall round the cemetery—I do not think it is necessary. You see, those who are in cannot get out, and those who are out side don't want to get in."

We all have a tremendous admiration for nurses and midwives. I would not attempt to indicate the important part they play in our lives—that is known to us all. But to suggest that these highly-trained professional women were not able in three months carefully to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the old scheme as compared with the new and reach an opinion as to whether they would remain in it, is, in my view, not fair to the ladies concerned. I would submit this further.point to your Lordships. Obviously, if an option were given, it could not be given only to midwives and nurses—I am sure they would not desire such a position—but would have to be extended to all the men and women now employed in the Health Service. I understand over 140,000 would be involved. I feel sure your Lordships will agree that a problem of that kind would raise administrative difficulties which, quite rightly, the Minister is not prepared to face, particularly as these difficulties have apparently been brought about because of a concession which he has had pressed upon him by the staff side and to which he has acceded. Therefore, on behalf of the staff concerned, and arising out of my very long experience of superannuation problems—if I may say so with due humility—I would commend these Regulations to your Lordships as a fine code for the new Health Service which, when they are in operation, will be a happy augury for the well-being of that Service.

4.31 p.m.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

My Lords, I am sure that I shall be meeting the wishes of your Lordships if, in the first instance, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burden, upon his first contribution to our discussions. The way he has dealt with this matter shows that he is likely to take a reasonable view on other matters, though of course he may be a little biased on this question. The illustrations which he ventured to use in order to lighten his discourse had rather a gloomy aspect when they led us to the walls of the cemetery. But cemeteries have their lighter features, because when I was in Dublin I found in the middle of the cemetery the tomb and monument of a very distinguished physician. It had originally been erected opposite the hospital in which he had tried to serve suffering humanity. The inscription read: "Si monumentum requiris, circumspice."

In regard to the question before your Lordships, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who asked us to accept the Regulations, because it must lead to considerable confusion on the actuarial side if there is a shuttle back into a federated scheme in addition to a shuttle out of it now. I think the number likely to shuffle out of the old scheme into the national scheme will be the larger. If I show some sympathy with the noble Lord in his difficulties, and also with the Minister in his, I hope that he will have his withers wrung and will extend sympathetic consideration to the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. Your Lordships may have some difficulty in deciding on which side I am throwing my support. It is important for these individuals that they should have the opportunity finally to decide, but we must realise also that administrative matters like this should be dealt with by the constituted body, the Whitley Council, and not by sections of the Whitley Council and outside bodies after decision has been arrived at.

4.34 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, may I say a few words in reply to the very fair debate which has taken place on my original Motion? First of all, I think your Lordships should realise the bait which may induce a certain number of the younger women to contract out if they are given an opportunity. For instance, if a young woman in the State superannuation scheme marries and desires to retire from the Service, she is entitled to take out her own contributions plus interest thereon. But if, before coming into the State scheme, she had been a member of another scheme—one relating, perhaps, to an insurance company—then on marrying and giving, up her duties and service she can take, in addition to her own contributions and interest, the contributions paid into her account by her employers. It will be realised at once that any State scheme could not operate on that basis. I am sure that the taxpayers' money needs careful handling at this moment, and we should all be reluctant to pay out more than we are in duty bound to pay to a person who is leaving the Service in this way.

It would be wrong, however, to assume that all the benefits are on one side. If, for instance, a nurse in the course of her duty contracts a complaint arising out of her duty and she has to leave the Service then, under the State scheme, if her complaint is permanent she is entitled to draw up to two-thirds of the pension she would receive in later life. Now that seems to me to be a point to put against the benefits likely to be obtained by young women who are going to marry and who are outside the scheme at this moment.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, was not quite fair to the Minister. There has been no lack of energy or interest on the part of the Minister in this regard. In December he announced that there would be draft Regulations. They were circulated, and they were considered by the workers' side of the Whitley Council. It was not until mid-January that the Minister became acquainted with the desire of the workers' side that this one-way option should be adopted. We are now only at the end of March. Other matters have had to be considered in relation to it, and I do not think anyone can be accused of dereliction of duty in the matter. The Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing who wrote a letter to the noble Lord complaining that she had only just seen a copy of the proposals, is herself a member of the Whitley Council. It is hardly conceivable that in her membership of this Council—which I understand she attends regularly—she should be entirely ignorant of what has transpired. Moreover, the same lady is secretary of the functional board associated with the Whitley Council for midwives and nurses, and copies of the new proposals were despatched to those functional councils directly they were available. Therefore, she must have been aware at that time of what had transpired.

But even if she was not aware of it, we cannot accuse the Minister of delaying matters in respect of this case because the Whitley Council is constituted in this way. There is the employers' side, which deals with all the units for which it is responsible, and there is also a workers' side, working together almost in a corporate capacity with a full-time secretary to look after its business. It is the normal custom for the Minister to approach all organisations responsible for civil servants in matters like that under discussion by way of the Whitley Council, and then through the officers of the staff side to their respective members. Therefore, if there has been any delay or fault—and I am not saying that there has—it is certainly not to be laid at the door of the Minister of Health.

We have always realised, as the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson and the noble Lord have indicated, that there may be hard cases, and therefore, I am prepared to give the following undertaking. If the House will pass these Regulations to-day I will undertake to ask the Minister to have these complaints investigated—that is to say, that hardship is being caused to those who have had insufficient opportunity to exercise the original option. The Minister has found ways and means of dealing with the few cases which have been brought to his notice in the past, and I have no doubt that he will be able to continue to do so if others are now brought to him. I hope that on that assurance, and with the background I have given, your Lordships will feel that these Regulations can be approved.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is trying to meet the point that has been raised, but I should have thought that the phrase "undertake to ask the Minister" was not quite strong enough. But if the intention is that the Minister will look into hard cases in the future as he has done in the past I think that might meet the position. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will ask the Minister in any event, but I hope he will be able to say more than he has done. That would, I think, satisfy us.

LORD SHEPHERD

I can make that promise. The noble Lord will have noticed that I read from my brief the undertaking that I am proposing, so that I have no difficulty in agreeing to what the noble Lord has said.

LORD TEYNHAM

I thank the noble Lord for that concession. I have been advised that in one or two cases nurses exercising the necessary option were finding difficulty in coming to a conclusion.

LORD SHEPHERD

At the time when the Regulations were originally put into operation the Minister made arrangements within the period of three months to bring the requirements of the changed circumstances to the attention of all concerned. A book entitled The Superannuation Scheme of the National Health Service was issued, giving details to all members employed in the hospitals of the new requirements. In addition, there was a leaflet which deals entirely with this question of opting in and opting out. As the noble Lord will appreciate, when we are dealing with large numbers of people—in this case almost 300,000–there are some dilatory ones among them who will take no action until the last minute. We are now giving the extended period of six months, not because the previous period of three months was too short but because we are now on the verge of publication following your Lordships' decision and therefore give the extra time in order to meet the shortness of preliminary notice,

On Question, Motion agreed to.